Loading...
Agenda Packet November 2 2015PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AGENDA 304 South Morgan Street, Room 215 Roxboro, NC 27573-5245 336-597-1720 Fax 336-599-1609 November 2, 2015 7:00pm CALL TO ORDER…………………………………………………. Chairman Puryear INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM #1 RECOGNITION Resolution of Appreciation ………………………………………... Chairman Puryear Person County Retiree, Deborah Wolfe ITEM #2 PUBLIC HEARING: Request by W. Ruffin Woody to rezone Tax Map 141 Parcel 1 (Roxboro Township) on Cavel Chub Lake Road (SR1531) from Residential (R) to Rural Conservation (RC) …………………………… Mike Ciriello ITEM #3 Consideration to Grant or Deny Request by W. Ruffin Woody to rezone Tax Map 141 Parcel 1 (Roxboro Township) on Cavel Chub Lake Road (SR1531) from Residential (R) to Rural Conservation (RC) …………………………………………. Chairman Puryear 1 ITEM #4 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed FY2017 Community Transportation Program Grant Application ………………………………………………………. Kathy Adcock ITEM #5 Consideration to Approve Proposed FY2017 Community Transportation Program Grant Application ………. Chairman Puryear INFORMAL COMMENTS The Person County Board of Commissioners established a 10 minute segment which is open for informal comments and/or questions from citizens of this county on issues, other than those issues for which a public hearing has been scheduled. The time will be divided equally among those wishing to comment. It is requested that any person who wishes to address the Board, register with the Clerk to the Board prior to the meeting. ITEM #6 DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes of October 19, 2015, B. Budget Amendment #10, and C. Bethel Hill Lease Agreement UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ITEM #7 Follow-up to Piedmont Community College’s Request to Purchase a Tractor …………………………………………………………. Heidi York NEW BUSINESS: ITEM #8 Solid Waste Study Technical Memo …………………………………………Sybil Tate ITEM #9 Person County Health Department Water Sample Fee Requests ……. Janet Clayton ITEM #10 Internal Service Fund Ordinance: Self-Funded Health Insurance Program ……………………………………………………………... Amy Wehrenberg CHAIRMAN’S REPORT MANAGER’S REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS/COMMENTS Note: All Items on the Agenda are for Discussion and Action as deemed appropriate by the Board. 2 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Deborah Wolfe has served the people of Person County during her tenure as a Processing Assistant IV with the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Deborah Wolfe has served the citizens of Person County with honor, integrity, sincerity and dedication, providing accurate, concise services for thirty-two years, September, 1983 – October, 2015; and WHEREAS, Deborah Wolfe has earned the respect and admiration of all who have known and worked with her throughout her career; and WHEREAS, the County of Person recognizes the many contributions Deborah Wolfe has made to the County and offers her sincere best wishes for her retirement. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Kyle Puryear, Chairman of the Person County Board of Commissioners, do hereby extend this Resolution of Appreciation to Deborah Wolfe for continually striving to make Roxboro and Person County a better place to live and work. Adopted this, the 2nd day of November, 2015. ____________________________________ Kyle Puryear, Chairman Person County Board of Commissioners Attest: _______________________ Brenda B. Reaves Clerk to the Board 3 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Public Hearing: Request by W. Ruffin Woody to rezone Tax Map 141 Parcel 1 (Roxboro Township) on Cavel Chub Lake Road (SR1531) from Residential (R) to Rural Conservation (RC) Summary Information: The request is to rezone 86.7 acre parcel, Tax Map 141 Parcel 1 on Cavel Chub Lake Road from Residential to Rural Conservation. If rezoned, all land uses permitted in the RC District will be allowed. The general intent of the RC, Rural Conservation District, is to provide for limited land use controls in area with limited non-agricultural development. While the area along Cavel Chub Lake Road is primarily zoned Residential; there are two parcels that are zoned B-2 (Neighborhood Business) immediately adjacent to the parcel under consideration for rezoning. The area is mainly single family residential structures. There is an old industrial site which has not been used for at least twenty years and it is zoned Residential. A map showing the location of the site and the current zoning is attached. The Planning Board held a Public Hearing on October 8, 2015 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the Land Use Plan considering this area as suburban residential and Section 2.1 of the Land Use Plan which promotes continued economic investment through retention and expansion of existing industrial concerns and the recruitment of new industrial and commercial businesses. The Planning Board found that the rezoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommended Action: Vote to approve or deny the rezoning Submitted By: Michael Ciriello, Planning Director 4 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Person County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:00pm in Room 215 of the Person County Office Building located at 304 S. Morgan Street, Roxboro, North Carolina to hear the following: 1. Request by W. Ruffin Woody to rezone Tax Map 141 Parcel 1 (Roxboro Township) on Cavel Chub Lake Road (SR1531) from Residential (R) to Rural Conservation (RC) Michael Ciriello, Planning Director Advertised: October 21, 2015 5 6 7 8 9 10 REZONING REQUEST RZ-03-15 APPLICANT: W. RUFFIN WOODY PROPERTY OWNER: W. RUFFIN WOODY REQUEST: REZONE PROPERTY ON SOUTH SIDE OF CAVEL CHUB LAKE ROAD, SR 1531, (TAX MAP 141, PARCEL1) FROM RESIDENTIAL (R) TO RC (RURAL CONSERVATION) LOCATION: CAVEL CHUB LAKE ROAD, SR 1531 ROXBORO TOWNSHIP The County has received an application from W. Ruffin Woody to amend the official zoning map. The request is to rezone a 86.7 acre parcel, Tax Map 141 Parcel 1 on Cavel Chub Lake Road from Residential to Rural Conservation. If rezoned, all land uses permitted in the RC District will be allowed. The general intent of the RC, Rural Conservation District is to provide for limited land use controls in area with limited non-agricultural development. The area along Cavel Chub Lake Road is primarily zoned Residential. There are two parcels that are zoned B-2 (Neighborhood Business). The area is mainly single family residential structures. There is an old industrial site which has not been used for at least twenty years and it is zoned Residential. Attached to this report is a map showing the area and the zoning of all of the parcels. The Person County Land Use Plan’s “Future Land Use Map” shows this area as Suburban Residential. It is defined as Residential land uses including subdivisions and manufactured home parks at densities of 1-3 dwelling units per acre; commercial, office, industrial, public/institutional uses meeting locational criteria. Locational criteria for non-residential uses within this land use category would include frontage and access to a major State highway or secondary road, proximity to similar uses and spatial separation from non-compatible uses such as existing residential development. Land uses within this category could develop with or without public sewer. Section 160-5(B) of the Zoning Ordinance states: “The Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that addresses that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, but a comment by the Planning Board that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment by the Board of County Commissioners. Prior to adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the Board of County 11 Commissioners shall adopt a statement describing whether its action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and why such action is reasonable and in the public interest. The Land Use Plan has Goals and Objectives for future land development within the County. The following item is listed within this section: 2.1 Objective: Promote continued economic investment through retention and expansion of existing industrial concerns and the recruitment of new industrial and commercial businesses. This parcel consists of 86.7 acres and the entire lot is within the rezoning request. It is located within the Roanoke River Basin which currently has no regulations pertaining to stormwater. There are one hundred year flood areas on the property per Map 3720090700J, dated July 25, 2006. There is City water and sewer available to the site. Access to the site is on Cavel Chub Lake Road, SR 1531. Typical uses permitted by right in the RC District are as follows: ABC store, retail sales, banks, bowling alley, carwash, convenience store, dry cleaners, single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, fire station/law enforcement center, funeral home, golf course, nursery (plants), professional office, reception center for recycling, mini-storage facility, etc. There are many other uses allowed with a Special Use Permit such as asphalt and asphalt production, automobile repair, camper/recreational park, electrical generating facility, Industrial operations, Mobile Home Park, private recreation for profit, etc. There are other uses allowed with a Conditional Use Permit: flammable storage, school, private or public and storage of coal by products. If the property were to remain residential, the following uses would be permitted by right: single family dwelling, Class “A” and Class “B” manufactured homes, modular homes, family care homes, nursery operations, horse stables, etc. The Residential district allows other uses by either a special use permit or a conditional use permit. Some uses allowed with a special use permit are: camper/recreational park, multiple family dwellings, Mobile Home Park, nonhazardous solid waste disposal, planned building group, quarry operations, private recreation for profit, airport operations and transmitting towers. Uses allowed with a conditional use permit are ambulance or rescue service, antique shops, bed and breakfast, commercial cemetery, church, medical and dental clinics, club or lodges, convenience store, day care center, two family dwelling, garage apartments, funeral home, library, rest home and schools. 12 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Watershed: Located in the Roanoke River Basin. Flood Hazard: There are one hundred year flood areas on the property. There is a stream located on the property. CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA: The property is located on Cavel Chub Lake Road. The area is primarily all single family. There is an old Industrial facility which has been vacant for over twenty years. That property consists of 10 acres and is zoned Residential. The single family dwellings are a mixture of stick built homes and doublewides. The Roxboro City limits are located nearby and the uses found are residential properties, used car lots and an old Industrial facility (C & A) on US 501. The City’s wastewater treatment facility is located on Cavel Chub Lake Road near this proposed rezoning. TRAFFIC COUNTS Per the 2013 NCDOT Traffic Count Map, there was a total of 2200 cars per day. ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 160-3 The Zoning Administrator shall have up to 30 days, at his or her discretion, prior to the regular Planning Board Meeting to review petitions from the public to amend this ordinance or Official Planning Map. Each petition unless initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Board, the Board of Adjustment or the Zoning Administrator shall be accompanied by a fee as set- out in SECTION 181-1 to defray the cost of advertising and other administrative costs. Applications for the amendments to the Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text shall contain at least the following: (1). For Amendments to the Official Planning Map, a map drawn to scale showing the exterior boundaries of the lot(s) which will be covered by the proposed map amendment; (2). For amendments to the Planning Ordinance text, a copy of the existing text provisions which the applicant proposes for amendment, and a written statement which describes in detail changes the applicant proposes to make to the text of the Ordinance. (3). The alleged error in the Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance Text which will be corrected by the 13 proposed amendment with a detailed explanation of such and detailed reasons how the proposed amendment will correct the same; (4). The changed or changing conditions, if any, in the area or in the County generally, which makes the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment reasonable necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare; (5). The manner in which the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment will carry out the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan or part thereof; and, (6). All other circumstances, factors and reasons which the applicant offers in support of the proposed Official Planning Map and/or Planning Ordinance text amendment. (Amended 8/5/96) 160-4 After submission of an application, the Zoning Administrator will schedule a public hearing for the planning board. When the provisions of the ordinance require that written or mailed notices be required, the Zoning Administrator will be responsible for mailing the written notices to all abutting property owners including the applicant. If required, the applicant at his expense shall post the notice on weatherproof signs, one sign per each road frontage and no more than 25’ from the street right of way. Signs must be clearly visible from the street and designate “Zoning Proposal Pending” with the phone number of the Person County Planning office. A notice of such public hearing shall be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in Person County. Said notice shall be published the first time not less than ten (10) days and not more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the date established for such public hearing. (Amended 11/5/01) 160-5 The Planning Board shall have sixty (60) days after the public hearing specified in SECTION 160-4 within which to submit its recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. Failure of the Board to submit its recommendation within this time period shall constitute a favorable recommendation. 160-6 The Board of County Commissioners shall consider requests at the next regular scheduled meeting of the Board following receipt of the Planning Board’s recommendation and after notice of the public hearing is provided in accordance with Section 160-7. 14 160-7 The County Manager or designate is authorized to set the public hearing date immediately following the Planning Board recommendation and after notice of the public hearing is provided in accordance with Section 160-7. STAFF COMMENTS: This is a request to rezone a 86.7 acre tract from Residential to RC (Rural Conservation). Attached to this report is an article on Spot Zoning from the Institute of Government, and a map showing the property in question and surrounding properties. The properties immediately adjacent are all zoned Residential. There are four factors in determining a reasonable basis for spot zoning. They are as follows: 1. Size of tract. The general rule is the smaller the tract, the more likely the rezoning will be held invalid. 2. Compatibility with Plan. Need to see if the rezoning fits into a larger context involving rational planning for the community. 3. Benefits and Detriments. Who benefits and who is harmed from the rezoning. Need to look at the property owner and the neighbors. 4. Relationship of Uses. Need to look at the relationship between the proposed uses and the current uses of adjacent properties. The Planning Board has the following options in a recommendation to the County Commissioners: 1. Approve the rezoning request as submitted. 2. Deny the rezoning request. The Board needs to address the compatibility with the Comprehensive plan in making their recommendation. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW The Planning Board held a Public Hearing on October 8, 2015 and voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the Land Use Plan considering this area as suburban residential and Section 2.1 of the Land Use Plan which promotes continued economic investment through retention and expansion of existing industrial concerns and the recruitment of new industrial and commercial businesses. 15 16 17 18 19 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Public Hearing for the proposed FY2017 Community Transportation Program Grant Application Summary of Information: The proposed FY2017 Community Transportation Program Application is due to be submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation no later than November 6, 2015. The Community Transportation Program provides assistance to coordinate existing transportation programs operating in Person County as well as provides transportation options and services for the communities within this service area. These services are currently provided using demand response, subscription and trip referrals. Services are rendered by utilizing ADA vans and Light Transit Vehicles. The total estimated amount requested for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. Project Total Amount Local Share Administrative $ 190,369 $ 28,556 (15%) Capital (Vehicles & Other) $ 177,000 $ 17,700 (10%) TOTAL PROJECT $ 367,369 $ 46,256 Total Funding Request Total Local Share Recommended Action: Board Approval Submitted By: Kathy Adcock, Person Area Transportation Director 20 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE This is to inform the public that a public hearing will be held on the proposed FY2017 Community Transportation Program Application to be submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation no later than November 6, 2015. The public hearing will be held on November 2, 2015 at 7:00pm in Room 215 in the Person County Office Building before the Person County Board of Commissioners. Those interested in attending the public hearing and needing either auxiliary aids or services under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or a language translator should contact Kathy Adcock, Transportation Manager on or before October 29, 2015, at telephone number (336) 597-1771 or via email at kadcock@personcounty.net. The Community Transportation Program provides assistance to coordinate existing transportation programs operating in Person County as well as provides transportation options and services for the communities within this service area. These services are currently provided using demand response, subscription and trip referrals. Services are rendered by utilizing ADA vans and Light Transit Vehicles. The total estimated amount requested for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 Project Total Amount Local Share Administrative $ 190,369 $ 28,556 (15%) Capital (Vehicles & Other) $ 177,000 $ 17,700 (10%) Operating (Small fixed-route, regional, and consolidated urban-rural systems only) $ $ *(50%) or more *Note: Small Fixed Route systems must contribute more than 50% TOTAL PROJECT $ 367,369 $ 46,256 Total Funding Request Total Local Share This application may be inspected at PATS Office, 341 S. Madison Blvd. Roxboro, NC 27573 from 8:30am to 5:00pm. Written comments should be directed to Brenda Reaves at 304 S. Morgan St. Rm 212, Roxboro, NC 27573 before October 29, 2015. End of Notice Note: AN ORIGINAL COPY of the published Public Hearing Notice must be attached to a signed Affidavit of Publication. Both the Public Hearing Notice and the Affidavit of Publication must be submitted with the CTP grant application. 21 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION Section 5311 FY 2017 RESOLUTION Applicant seeking permission to apply for Community Transportation Program funding, enter into agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, provide the necessary assurances and the required local match. A motion was made by (Board Member’s Name) and seconded by (Board Member’s Name or N/A, if not required) N/A for the adoption of the following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering federal and state public transportation funds; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation will apply for a grant from the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and receives funds from the North Carolina General Assembly to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services consistent with the policy requirements for planning, community and agency involvement, service design, service alternatives, training and conference participation, reporting and other requirements (drug and alcohol testing policy and program, disadvantaged business enterprise program, and fully allocated costs analysis); and WHEREAS, Person County hereby assures and certifies that it will provide the required local matching funds; that its staff has the technical capacity to implement and manage the project, prepare required reports, obtain required training, attend meetings and conferences; and agrees to comply with the federal and state statutes, regulations, executive orders, Section 5333 (b) Warranty, and all administrative requirements related to the applications made to and grants received from the Federal Transit Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, U. S. C. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the (Authorized Official’s Title)* County Manager of (Name of Applicant’s Governing Body) Person County is hereby authorized to submit a grant application for federal and state funding, make the necessary assurances and certifications and be empowered to enter into an agreement with the NCDOT to provide rural public transportation services. I (Certifying Official’s Name)* Brenda B. Reaves (Certifying Official’s Title) Clerk to the Board of Commissioners do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the minutes of a meeting of the (Name of Applicant’s Governing Board) Person County Board of Commissioners duly held on the 2nd day of November, 2015. Signature of Certifying Official *Note that the authorized official, certifying official, and notary public should be three separate individuals. Seal Subscribed and sworn to me (date) Notary Public * Printed Name and Address My commission expires (date) Affix Notary Seal Here 22 LOCAL SHARE CERTIFICATION FOR FUNDING Person County (Legal Name of Applicant) Requested Funding Amounts Project Total Amount Local Share______ Administrative $ 190,369 $ 28,556 (15%) Capital (Vehicles & Other) $ 177,000 $ 17,700 (10%) Operating (Small fixed route, regional, and $ $ *(50% or more) consolidated urban-rural systems) *Note: Small fixed route systems contribute more than 50% TOTAL $ 367,369 $ 46,256 Total Funding Requests Total Local Share The Local Share is available from the following sources: Source of Funds Amount Local County Funds $ 46,256 $ $ $ TOTAL $ 46,256 ** Fare box revenue is not an applicable source for local share funding I, the undersigned representing Person County do hereby certify to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, that the required local funds for the FY2017 Community Transportation Program will be available as of July 1, 2016, which has a period of performance of July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017. _________________________________________ Signature of Authorized Official Heidi York, County Manager Type Name and Title of Authorized Official November 2, 2015 Date 23 October 19, 2015 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 19, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Kyle W. Puryear Heidi York, County Manager David Newell, Sr. B. Ray Jeffers Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board Jimmy B. Clayton Tracey L. Kendrick The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in regular session on Monday, October 19, 2015 at 9:00am in the Commissioners’ meeting room in the Person County Office Building. Chairman Puryear called the meeting to order. Commissioner Kendrick gave an invocation and Vice Chairman Newell led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA: A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newell and carried 5-0 to add an item to the agenda to discuss appropriating funds to Piedmont Community College for a tractor. A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to approve the agenda as adjusted. INFORMAL COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Commissioner Kendrick and carried 5-0 to approve the Consent Agenda with the following items: A. Approval of Minutes of October 5, 2015, B. Budget Amendment #9, and C. Tax Adjustments for October 2015 a. Tax Releases b. NC Vehicle Tax System pending refunds 24 October 19, 2015 2 NEW BUSINESS: COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL: Mr. Aaron Theolet, Corporate Development Officer and Ms. Anna Knight, Corporate Development Specialist with Telamon Corporation, a 501c3 organization headquartered in Raleigh designated as the Community Action agency for Person, Caswell, and Rockingham Counties presented to the Board their 2015-2016 proposal for a Telamon Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program funded by the NC Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to serve low income residents and provide employment and skills training, education supports, and case management services. Mr. Theolet stated the application process is governed by the NC Administrative Code 10A NCAC 97B.0402 which requires 1) a public meeting which was held on August 25, 2015 at the Human Services facility, 2) a presentation to the Board of Commissioners with comments accepted for 30 days, and 3) approval from Telamon Corporation’s board of directors which is scheduled for November 21, 2015; all of which to be completed prior to the application submission to the state agency. Mr. Theolet stated Telamon learned during the public meetings process that employment is a challenge for residents of the Person, Caswell and Rockingham Counties both in terms of the number of available jobs as well as worker qualification for existing jobs. Obtaining reliable transportation can be challenging for low income individuals and Mr. Theolot noted the need for supported services and coordination of services with existing providers to assist citizens to reach their education and employment goals. Mr. Theolet said the program designed for Person County included employment education and training services for work experience, skills training, vocational assessment, and case management through referral to existing agencies in the community. Key supports from the community agencies will include housing, health services, food nutrition assistance and childcare support. Mr. Theolet noted Telamon’s application for Person County totaled $87,890 which would support one full time staff working in Person County for the duration of the program starting in March or April 2016. Commissioner Jeffers asked about the location for the family advocate that would be assigned to Person County. Mr. Theolet started his team is working to identify a location. Vice Chairman Newell asked Mr. Theolet if all expenses were covered in the grant to which Mr. Theolet confirmed affirmatively. Mr. Theolet said input was received from Piedmont Community College, Kerr Tar Work Force Development and the human services agencies related to the process of sending referrals for their services. 25 October 19, 2015 3 PRELIMINARY RESOLUTION – FINANCING OF ROXPLEX PROPERTY AND VARIOUS FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT IMPROVEMENTS: RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING A PROPOSED INSTALLMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT TO FINANCE A PORTION OF THE COST OF VARIOUS PROJECTS AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS: Chairman Puryear introduced the following Resolution: 26 October 19, 2015 4 Finance Director, Amy Wehrenberg requested Board approval on the presented resolution related to the proposed installment financing of the Roxplex property and various facility and equipment improvements. Ms. Wehrenberg noted the presented resolution was set forth by sections in the following: 1. Sets forth certain findings and determinations regarding the proposal to finance a portion of the costs to acquire property and to cover the construction improvements to the Roxplex property, Huck Sansbury, South Elementary, Woodland Elementary, Oak Lane Elementary, North End Elementary and South Middle School; 2. Presented a stated intent to enter into a financing agreement for the above noted projects and Person County’s fiscal state is sufficient to take on the additional debt; 3. Designates and authorizes certain County officials to represent the County in filing an application with and requesting approval from the Local Government Commission (LGC) for the proposed financing agreement; 4. Requests that the LGC approve the proposed financing agreement; 5. Designates the special counsel to represent the County’s interests; and 6. The resolution is effective upon its passage by the Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to approve a Resolution making certain determinations concerning a proposed installment financing agreement to finance a portion of the cost of various projects and providing for certain related matters. 27 October 19, 2015 5 PERSON COUNTY SPONSORSHIP POLICY TO INCLUDE THE ROXPLEX: Mr. John Hill, Director of the Recreation, Arts, and Parks Department, and on behalf of the Person County Recreation Advisory Board requested an update to the Person County Sponsorship Policy to include the Roxplex facility. Mr. Hill stated the Person County Recreation Advisory Board met on October 7, 2015 and discussed the future plans for sponsorship opportunities for the Person County Roxplex renovation project noting the board unanimously voted to recommend the following to the Person County Board of Commissioners: 1. Utilize the current sponsorship policy in place for the Person County Parks facilities for the Roxplex Facility with the following additions: • Person County Little League sponsorships would be $500 for a single one (1) year duration; • Field Name Sponsorship - $10,000 for a single five (5) year duration; • Complex Name Sponsorship - $50,000 for a single five (5) year duration 2. Person County Little League Program Sponsorships will be designated solely to be used for the benefit of the Little League programs, event area improvements, and other related program operational costs. 3. Complex/Field Sponsorships will be used specifically for improvements to the Roxplex facility and will be managed by the Person County Parks and Recreation Department. A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to accept the recommendations from the Recreation Advisory Board to include the Roxplex facility in the Person County Sponsorship Policy. 28 October 19, 2015 6 APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO PIEDMONT COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR A TRACTOR: County Manager, Heidi York stated Piedmont Community College (PCC) President, Dr. Walter Bartlett requested an item be added to the agenda for the Board to reconsider PCC’s budget request to appropriate county funds to purchase a John Deere 5085E Tractor and attachments (John Deere H240 Loader, John Deere MX8 Rotary Cutter, WR Long 4 in 1 Bucket and Bush Hog) currently priced at $71,000 as well as a new Troy- Bilt Vortex 2490 Snow Blower for sidewalks at a price of $1,100. Ms. York stated when the Board adopted its Fiscal Year 2016 budget, $10,000 was appropriated in contingency to aid PCC in snow removal; however, PCC staff has not been successful in securing a contract for same day snow removal service thus the request for Board consideration to appropriate funds for the above noted equipment. Dr. Bartlett explained PCC’s need for the new tractor and equipment was to clear 10.5 acres of parking lot in a timely manner. In addition, Dr. Bartlett said the tractor would be used to mow 10 acres of fields twice a month during mowing season as well as other miscellaneous duties. Commissioner Kendrick asked Dr. Bartlett why PCC needed a 85HP tractor versus 35-40HP to which Dr. Bartlett replied that more power was needed as the clearing of the roads and sidewalks is time sensitive, preferably completed within two to five hours. Dr. Bartlett noted PCC’s current tractor is more than 40 years old. Vice Chairman Newell stated he had taken a look at the current tractor and in his opinion, PCC staff have done a good job to make it last this long. Commissioner Kendrick stated he had spoken with two landscapers in the county who are both bonded, insured and been in business for many years; one of the landscapers viewed PCC’s campus and provided Commissioner Kendrick a quote to pretreat and remove snow from PCC’s parking lots and roads for $1,200 per event. Dr. Bartlett stated the estimates PCC staff had secured were $7,500 per event. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Newell to appropriate up to $60,000 to Piedmont Community College for purchase of a tractor. Commissioner Kendrick stated his opposition to the motion on the floor noting his preference to have a contract for pretreatment and snow removal. Commissioner Clayton requested consideration for the motion to be amended to include a pricing comparison with other state contract vendors as well as to consider other brands, i.e. New Holland, Kubota, in addition to John Deere, and older models to get better pricing and to bring back to Board at its next meeting. Vice Chairman Newell agreed to amend the motion on the floor with Commissioner Clayton’s request as well as to add the option to price outside the state contract vendors. 29 October 19, 2015 7 A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Clayton and carried 5-0 to table appropriating funds to Piedmont Community College for a tractor until the Board’s next scheduled meeting. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT: Chairman Puryear reported the following two requests for joint meetings. He asked the County Manager to coordinate proposed dates with the Board. • Board of Commissioners, City Council and Person County Business Industrial Center (PCBIC) to meet jointly in November. • Person County Museum of History extended an opportunity for the Board of Commissioners to tour the museum and campus with its board of directors. MANAGER’S REPORT: County Manager, Heidi York reminded the Board of the Stormwater Monitoring Site Tour scheduled for October 20, 2015 at 1:30-4:30pm. The group will meet in the IT training room. COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS: Commissioner Jeffers commented on the following: • Earl Bradsher extended an invitation for interested citizens to participate in their Reading program. • He would address the AARP group on October 20, 2015 at the Senior Center starting at 2:00pm on the renovation and new construction of the Senior Center facility that the Board approved. • Assistance has been requested from the SADD organization to raise funding for students to attend a conference in Raleigh. • He had been contacted by someone interested in the Human Relations Committee being reactivated. Commissioner Clayton asked the County Manager to find out if SADD activities, such as the conference, was funded by Person County Schools or any other civic groups. Commissioner Kendrick had no report. 30 October 19, 2015 8 Vice Chairman Newell had no report. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Kendrick and carried 5-0 to adjourn the meeting at 9:49am. _____________________________ ______________________________ Brenda B. Reaves Kyle W. Puryear Clerk to the Board Chairman (Draft Board minutes are subject to Board approval). 31 11/2/2015 Dept./Acct No.Department Name Amount Incr / (Decr) EXPENDITURES General Fund General Government (3,260) Human Services 134 Cultural and Recreation 23,486 REVENUES General Fund Other Revenues 20,360 EXPENDITURES Airport Capital Construction Fund Fuel System Upgrade (42,000) Fencing Perimeter & Emg Repair (201,148) TW Lighting (21,180) REVENUES Airport Capital Construction Fund Federal funds: Fuel System Upgrade (37,800) Local funds: Fuel System Upgrade (4,200) Federal funds: Fencing Perimeter (181,031) Local funds: Fencing Perimeter (20,117) Federal funds: TW Lighting (19,062) Local funds: TW Lighting (2,118) EXPENDITURES CIP Project Fund Contingency 75,554 REVENUES CIP Project Fund Transfer from Other Fund 75,554 EXPENDITURES Schools Re-roofing Project Fund Contingency (75,554) Transfer to Other Fund 75,554 Explanation: Transfer of funds from General Services (-$3,260) to the Kirby ($3,260) for additional parking lot paving costs; receipt of property and liability damage claim for Parks and Recreation ($20,226); receipt of vehicle damage claim for DSS ($134); closing out airport revenues and expenditures that are complete for the Fuel System Upgrade, Fencing Perimeter, and Taxiway Lighting projects (-$264,328); transferring remaining funds in completed Schools Roofing Project to CIP Fund ($75,554). BUDGET AMENDMENT BA-1032 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Nov 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Bethel Hill lease amendment Background information: In Feb 2015, the BOC agreed to lease property from Bethel Hill for the construction of a public safety tower. Summary of Information: Bethel Hill Charter School’s auditor has recommended that the lease agreement be amended to include the following language: “No indebtedness of any kind incurred or created by the charter school shall constitute an indebtedness of the State or its political subdivisions, and no indebtedness of the charter school shall involve or be secured by the faith, credit, or taxing power of the State or its political subdivisions.” Recommended Action: Approve the lease amendment. Submitted By: Asst. County Manager, Sybil Tate 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Amendment 1 The agreement executed by the parties on this 20th day of April, 2015 is hereby amended by adding the following provision on this the 2nd day of November, 2015: No indebtedness of any kind incurred or created by the charter school shall constitute an indebtedness of the State or its political subdivisions, and no indebtedness of the charter school shall involve or be secured by the faith, credit, or taxing power of the State or its political subdivisions. BETHEL HILL PERSON COUNTY CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BY: ___________________________ BY: __________________________ Joseph Berryhill, Chairman Kyle Puryear, Chairman SEAL SEAL ATTEST: ATTEST: ________________________________ ______________________________ Stephen Hester, Principal Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board 40 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Follow-up to Piedmont Community College’s Request to Purchase a Tractor Summary of Information: At the Board’s October 19th Meeting, Piedmont Community College (PCC) brought forward a mid-year budget request to increase their FY15-16 appropriation for the purchase of a tractor. PCC provided a quote of $71,391 for an 85HP John Deere tractor to be used for mowing 10 acres of grass and clearing 10.5 acres of parking lots and pavement during snowstorms. The Board directed the County Manager to compare prices and models of tractors with multiple vendors to ensure that the best value is being obtained. Staff has priced various options and obtained quotes from: Boone Tractor in South Boston Vanco Equipment Services in Henderson Graham Tractor in Graham Quality Equipment in Roxboro A matrix of specifications and pricing options will be shared with the Board for discussion and comparisons. Recommended Action: Receive the information. Submitted By: Heidi York, County Manager 41 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: Nov. 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Solid Waste Study Technical Memo Background: At the August 17, 2015 BOC meeting, the Board approved hiring Smith&Gardner to conduct a Solid Waste Study. Summary of Information: Smith&Gardner has produced a technical memo evaluating the seven options recommended in their proposal. The seven options include the following: • Renegotiate the current franchise agreement with Republic Services • County-owned, County-operated transfer station to transfer waste to an out-of- County facility • County-owned, private-operated transfer station to transfer waste to an out-of-County facility • Private-owned and operated transfer station to transfer waste to an out-of-County facility • Direct haul to Granville County without developing a transfer station • County-owned and operated landfill for County only waste • County-owned, private-operated landfill for County only waste Of these seven options, Smith&Gardner recommends further study of the following three options: • Renegotiation of the Franchise Agreement • County-Owned and Private-Operated Transfer Station • Direct Haul to Granville County Once the three options for further study have been determined, the consultant will conduct a cost- benefit analysis of those options. The analysis will include a 30 year evaluation of the operating and capital costs for both the City and County. Recommended Action: Recommend up to three options for further study by the consultant. Submitted By: Sybil Tate, Assistant County Manager 42 Task This k 3.1 – Qu Soli Per document is inte for the purp DRA alitative d Waste M rson Coun P Per Nor © 2015 S ended for the sol rpose agreed upo AFT STUDY Review o Managem nty, North Prepared for: son County rth Carolina Prepared by: Smith Gardner, I le use of the clien on by the client an Y of Disposa ment Stud h Carolina y Inc. ent for which it wa nd Smith Gardne al Option y a as prepared and er, Inc. s d 43 This page intentionally left blank. 44 Draft Study Task 3.1 Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Solid Waste Management Study Person County, North Carolina Prepared For: Person County North Carolina S+G Project No. : Person 15-1 Joan A. Smyth, P.G. Senior Geologist W. Michael Brinchek, P.E. Senior Project Manager October 13, 2015 45 This page intentionally left blank. 46 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Table of Contents Page v Task 3.1 Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Solid Waste Management Study Person County, North Carolina Draft Study Table of Contents Page 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 1  2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2  3.0 COUNTY LISTENING SESSION ............................................................................................ 3  4.0 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 4  5.0 OPTIONS REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 4  5.1 Renegotiate the Current Franchise Agreement with Republic Services ................ 4  5.1.1 General Considerations ................................................................................ 4  5.1.2 Planning Considerations ............................................................................... 5  5.1.3 Financial Considerations .............................................................................. 5  5.2 County-Owned and Operated Transfer Station ........................................................ 5  5.2.1 General Considerations ................................................................................ 5  5.2.2 Planning Considerations ............................................................................... 5  5.2.3 Financial Considerations .............................................................................. 6  5.2.4 Disposal Considerations ............................................................................... 7  5.2.5 City of Roxboro Impact .................................................................................. 7  5.3 County-Owned and Private-Operated Transfer Station ........................................... 8  5.3.6 General Considerations ................................................................................ 8  5.3.7 Planning Considerations ............................................................................... 8  5.3.8 Financial Considerations .............................................................................. 8  5.3.9 Disposal Considerations ............................................................................... 8  5.3.10 City of Roxboro Impact ................................................................................. 9  5.4 Private-Owned and Operated Transfer Station ........................................................ 9  5.4.1 General Considerations ................................................................................ 9  5.4.2 Planning Considerations ............................................................................... 9  5.4.3 Financial Considerations .............................................................................. 9  5.4.4 Disposal Considerations ............................................................................... 9  5.5 Direct Haul to Granville County ................................................................................ 9  5.5.1 General Considerations .............................................................................. 10  5.5.2 Planning Considerations ............................................................................. 10  5.5.3 Financial Considerations ............................................................................ 10  5.6 County-Owned Landfill ............................................................................................ 10  5.6.1 General Considerations .............................................................................. 10  6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................11  47 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Table of Contents Page vi This page intentionally left blank. 48 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, Person County is required to provide citizens with solid waste disposal and options for complying with State disposal bans. N.C.G.S. § 130A-309.09A requires that the County:  Assess and determine the adequacy of local solid waste collection and disposal services to meet local needs and to protect human health and the environment;  Make a good faith effort to achieve the State’s forty percent municipal solid waste (MSW) reduction goal; and  Complete and submit the Local Government Solid Waste and Materials Management Annual Report. N.C.G.S. § 130A-309.10 also requires the County:  Make a good faith effort to provide citizens with options for complying with the state disposal bans as itemized in § 130A-309.10 part (f). Currently, with access to the Upper Piedmont Landfill and Person Industries Recycling Center, curbside collection in Roxboro and available curbside collection from private haulers in unincorporated Person County, the County provides a level of service that is commensurate with other local governments and meets State requirements. On August 7, 2017 the County’s Franchise Agreement with Republic Services will expire. Although the County has an option to continue the current Franchise Agreement annually for an additional ten (10) years, annual renewals for landfill operations are not the most effective waste management strategy and will be subject to the terms and conditions of the existing Franchise Agreement, which states that“…the County may continue to use the New Landfill on a year-to-year basis under the same terms and conditions until such time as the New Landfill is, in Upper Piedmont’s discretion, completely filled or otherwise rendered unusable or unfeasible for use as a sanitary landfill.” Additionally, this option will require annual evaluation and approval of continued disposal. As a result of the Franchise Agreement expiration and Person County’s charge to determine the adequacy of local solid waste collection and disposal services to meet local needs and to protect human health and the environment, Person County needs to review and evaluate options for solid waste management and identify the County’s long-term solid waste disposal options. In May 2015, the County reviewed future waste management options as part of the published Request for Proposals. The County’s review included the following options:  Negotiate up to a 30-year contract and adopt a franchise agreement for up to 30-years;  Extend the current franchise agreement annually up to 10-years; or  Allow the contract to expire and engage in one of the following options: o Build a County-owned and operated landfill; 49 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 2 o Build a transfer station/upgrade the existing transfer station and haul waste to Granville County’s landfill or other out-of-County landfill; o Allow individuals and businesses to direct haul to Granville County; or o Find another private waste company to own and operate a landfill. These options were revised by S+G and accepted by the County during proposal development process and include an evaluation of the following options:  Renegotiate the current franchise agreement with Republic Services;  County-owned, County-operated transfer station to transfer waste to an out-of-County facility;  County-owned, private-operated transfer station to transfer waste to an out-of-County facility;  Private-owned and operated transfer station to transfer waste to an out-of-County facility;  Direct haul to Granville County without developing a transfer station;  County-owned and operated landfill for County only waste; and  County-owned, private-operated landfill for County only waste. The purpose of this study is to qualitatively evaluate solid waste disposal options, as refined during the proposal development process, and to identify options generally comparable to the current use of the Republic Services, Inc. Upper Piedmont Landfill. While waste reduction, reuse, and recycling activities, through future development of Person Industries Recycling Center will continue to be a key element of the County’s overall solid waste management plan, there will remain the need for solid waste disposal. Thus, the focus of this part of the study is strictly related to the qualitative evaluation of waste disposal options for Person County and the impacts the disposal options have on the County and secondarily, the impacts on the City of Roxboro. 2.0 BACKGROUND According to the County’s 2013-2014 Annual Report to NCDEQ (formerly NCDENR), the County, including the City of Roxboro and commercial and industrial businesses generated about 39,000 tons of MSW. Based on the County’s population as presented in the Annual Report, the County’s per capita annual disposal rate is about 1.0 tons per year, which is almost nine (9) percent higher than the State’s average 0.93 tons per year. Person County, through Person Industries currently operates a recycling center that accepts recycling materials from Person County residents and businesses. The recycling center manually sorts, bales and markets received materials. In FY 2015 Person Industries processed 1,952 tons of recyclable materials, which generated $111,676 of revenue for the County. Data is not available to compare the County’s current recycling rate with other counties. However the County’s current recycling rate is similar to the County’s 2012-13 recycling rate, which, at the time, ranked 28th in the State for household recycling. The recycling center is the only waste management facility owned and operated by Person County currently receiving solid waste. All 50 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 3 other waste generated in Person County is transported directly to the Upper Piedmont Landfill by one of the following options:  Direct haul by County residential and commercial customers;  Direct haul by the City of Roxboro; or  Direct haul by private haulers servicing residential and commercial customers. As confirmed by the May 2015 RFP the County does not currently pay any direct costs associated with solid waste services and receives $530,000/year in host fee revenues, $25,000/year in funding to promote recycling and $30,214 in tax revenues from Republic Services. The City of Roxboro and unincorporated citizens of Person County are required to pay for solid waste collection and/or disposal at a rate of $40.14/ton. 3.0 COUNTY LISTENING SESSION On September 21, 2015 Person County held a listening session to allow the public to speak concerning the current and future solid waste management plan. Approximately 40 people attended, and 10 citizens elected to speak at the listening session. The following specific concerns/issues were identified by the speakers at the session. These will be reviewed as part of the current study:  Health, Safety and Environmental Concerns – Citizens expressed concerns regarding historically accepted wastes and citizen cancer rates in the area.  Person County Beautification – Citizens are concerned with litter along Hwy 158.  Disposal Convenience – Citizens in the western part of the County are over 20 miles from the landfill and have limited convenient disposal options.  Highway 158 Traffic – Citizens along Highway 158, near the landfill are concerned with traffic congestion.  Job Creation – Citizens are concerned that a landfill is not conducive to job creation and does not attract jobs to Person County.  No Evidence of Environmental Impact – Citizens that have reviewed public information regarding the Republic Upper Piedmont Landfill found no evidence of environmental impact from the site.  Economic Hardship –Citizens expressed concern that closing the existing Republic Upper Piedmont Landfill may cause economic hardship for residents of the City of Roxboro and the County due to potential disposal cost and tax/fee increases. In general, citizens against continuing the landfill cited environmental and health concerns, as well as beautification and traffic concerns; while citizens in favor of continuing the relationship with Republic Services cited economic concerns that may ensue should the franchise agreement be allowed to expire and waste be transferred out of County. Economic concerns also include the potential economic impact to the City of Roxboro which may require a tax and/or fee increase to address additional expenses. 51 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 4 S+G also received information following the listening session from PC Pride identifying several of their concerns. Their concerns along with S+G’s responses are included as an attachment in Appendix A. 4.0 DEFINITIONS Due to the highly technical nature of waste disposal, S+G offers this Section to clarify the terms used in the report. Convenience Center – Typically provided for residential customers, convenience centers are container sites that provide solid waste disposal and recycling services to rural areas. Generally, they consist of roll-off dumpsters and/or compactors for MSW and recyclable drop off. Waste is hauled from convenience centers to landfill or transfer stations when the units are full. A convenience center is not a “transfer station”. Flow Control – The ability for a unit of government to legislate the flow of MSW within jurisdictional boundaries (e.g. City of Roxboro has flow control over the residential waste generated within the City). Household or Availability Fee – A fee assessed by a unit of local government to residences to finance solid waste disposal and recycling services. Tipping Fee – A weight based fee assessed at a solid waste disposal facility to finance facility operations including maintenance, operations, disposal and/or transportation. Also referred to as a “gate rate” which is the posted tipping fee at a facility. Transfer Station – A waste handling facility that typically receives waste from residential and/or commercial customers as well as waste collection vehicles servicing residential and commercial customers and consolidates waste, typically into a waste transfer trailer for hauling long distances. A transfer station is not a convenience center. 5.0 OPTIONS REVIEW The following represents S+G’s qualitative review of the options. 5.1 Renegotiate the Current Franchise Agreement with Republic Services 5.1.1 General Considerations As discussed and presented in S+G’s June 2015 Statement of Qualifications and Proposal, there are no alternative options that will be more economically favorable to the County than renegotiating the current franchise agreement. The County currently receives over $580,000 annually in revenue from Republic Services and the County’s residential and commercial customers are paying $40.22 per ton at the landfill gate. In comparison, all other waste disposal options, except for a privately-owned and operated transfer station, would require County financing of solid waste infrastructure and/or operations. 52 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 5 5.1.2 Planning Considerations S+G reviewed the current permit and NCDEQ’s Fiscal Year 2014 Landfill Capacity Report. The Upper Piedmont Landfill has between 35 and 40 years of permitted landfill volume remaining. Based on the permitted volume the Upper Piedmont Landfill would provide sufficient capacity to allow the County and Republic Services to negotiate a 30-year Franchise Agreement. 5.1.3 Financial Considerations This is the only option available to the County that maintains the host fees of over $580,000 per year from the landfill operations. 5.2 County-Owned and Operated Transfer Station 5.2.1 General Considerations A County Owned and Operated Transfer Station allows Person County complete control of the MSW moving through the transfer station and direct control over the level of service that it can provide to citizens, but places all risk associated with infrastructure construction and operations onto the County. According to the EPA1, transfer stations become more economically viable than direct haul when the disposal location is greater than 15 to 20 miles away [1]. Based on a cursory review, Roxboro, which is the most densely populated area in Roxboro, is over 25 miles from the Granville County Landfill, thus making a transfer station a reasonable consideration. 5.2.2 Planning Considerations Planning a transfer station will require the County identify an out-of-County landfill for disposal and conduct a siting study to identify areas in the County most suitable for transfer operations to the landfill. It is anticipated that the siting study would evaluate re-opening the County’s Transfer Station in Roxboro as one available option. 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision Making” http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/r02002.pdf 53 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 6 After selecting the most appropriate site, the County will be need to:  Plan, permit, design and construct the solid waste transfer station and ancillary facilities, which should include services currently provided by the Upper Piedmont Landfill;  Hire staff to manage and operate the facility;  Purchase equipment to operate the facility; and  Contract with a hauling firm to transfer waste from the County’s transfer station. The County’s May 2015 Options Analysis indicates that the schedule for developing the transfer station option is two (2) years. This is a reasonable schedule to re-permit and update the Roxboro Transfer Station, but may be insufficient to site, permit, design and construct a new facility. 5.2.3 Financial Considerations The County’s May 2015 Options Analysis indicates that the budgetary impact would require a $1Million capital investment and $2.7 Million annually for transfer station operations, transportation and disposal. This estimate appears reasonable for the existing transfer station. The capital investment for a new facility could be upwards of twice the cost. Capital expenses (in particular initial development costs), may be financed through issuance of bonds (i.e. general obligation (GO), special obligation (SO), or revenue bonds) and/or through installment purchase (I/P) contracts. Financing of capital expenses and operations can be funded through the County’s general fund or through the set-up of an enterprise fund. Financing through the general fund is dependent on tax revenues and is more susceptible to public policy changes and priorities. Financing through an enterprise fund requires the County develop a self-sustaining fund through tipping fees and household/availability fees to cover the full-cost accounting of the system. With nothing currently in place, the County would likely need to implement a household fee to provide a consistent source of revenues. Although tipping fees are used to help subsidize transfer station costs, the transfer station tipping fee is variably dependent upon facility tonnages and generally not recommended as the sole financing mechanism for the facility. In addition, the tipping fee is typically set to provide a competitive disposal option to attract customers needed to sustain operations. With limited control on incoming waste tonnages will be unpredictable, which is why a household/availability fee would be likely necessary. 54 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 7 Regardless of the funding mechanism, the direct disposal cost to Person County citizens would increase potentially as much as 50% compared to the current gate rate paid at the Upper Piedmont Landfill. 5.2.4 Disposal Considerations It has been proposed by PC Pride that the County transfer waste to Granville County and that if the County partners with Granville County; the County would have an opportunity to negotiate a tipping rate with Granville County that could be lower than the current Granville County gate rate of $42.00/ton or the current Upper Piedmont Landfill gate rate of $40.22/ton. S+G verified that the Granville County Landfill is permitted to take waste from adjoining counties and the County would be willing to consider reducing the gate rate if they were guaranteed enough tonnage (35,000 tons or more). S+G estimates that the County will not be able to guarantee enough tonnage to negotiate a gate rate change. The County currently generates approximately 39,000 tons annually and has limited control of the waste (over half of the waste generated is from commercial and industrial generators and over 7,000 tons is collected by the City of Roxboro). Since the County is not in control of the waste, and therefore cannot guarantee 35,000 tons, S+G recommends the County consider the current Granville County gate rate when projecting future disposal costs for a transfer station option. 5.2.5 City of Roxboro Impact Should the County decide to transfer MSW out-of-County, the City of Roxboro could elect to partner with the County to take waste to the Transfer Station or direct haul to Granville County. Currently, once full, City trucks travel approximately 22 miles roundtrip to dispose of MSW at the Upper Piedmont Landfill. If the City partnered with Person County to transfer waste out-of-County, the City’s roundtrip mileage would decrease assuming the transfer station is located in proximity to Roxboro, but disposal costs would increase due to the added costs for transferring and hauling. The City’s other option - direct haul to Granville County - would save the City money on disposal, but would increase the City’s current roundtrip mileage by approximately 35 miles per trip, increasing the costs of transportation and vehicular maintenance. As stated above, the overall disposal fee would also increase due to the higher gate rate at Granville County. 55 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 8 A detailed cost estimate would need to be performed by the City to determine the overall impact on the City for each scenario. Either scenario is expected to cost the City more than they currently pay to dispose of waste at the Upper Piedmont Landfill. 5.3 County-Owned and Private-Operated Transfer Station 5.3.6 General Considerations The County-Owned/Private-Operated Option provides the County with control of the facility location and permit, while removing the County’s risk of facility operations (i.e. staffing, equipment, general maintenance). Maintaining ownership of the facility and permit also allows the County to control the geographic service area, facility operations and customer service. 5.3.7 Planning Considerations Similar to the County-Owned and Operated Transfer Station, the County would be responsible for siting, permitting, design and construction. However, facility operations would be privatized through a Request for Proposal (RFP). The schedule to implement this option should be similar to the County-Owned and Operated Option. 5.3.8 Financial Considerations The financial considerations for a County-Owned and Private-Operated Transfer Station are similar to the County-Owned and Operated Option with one significant exception - the County would avoid the initial investment and management of staff and rolling stock required for transfer station operations. However, the County would be required to fund the entire system including construction, operations, transfer and disposal. Funding would be similar to the County-Owned and Operated Transfer Station Option. As with the County-Owned and Operated Transfer Station Option, direct costs to Person County citizens would increase compared to the current gate rate paid at the Upper Piedmont Landfill. 5.3.9 Disposal Considerations The Granville County Landfill would remain an option for this scenario, but the County should allow the Contractor to identify the disposal location through the RFP process to help identify the most cost-effective option. 56 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 9 5.3.10 City of Roxboro Impact The impact to the City of Roxboro would be the same as reported in the Section 5.2.5. 5.4 Private-Owned and Operated Transfer Station 5.4.1 General Considerations This option places the burden of site selection, operations and disposal directly on the Contractor. The County’s control of this option would be limited to the Contractor through a competitive RFP Process. S+G anticipates that the response to the RFP for this option would be limited. 5.4.2 Planning Considerations The County would be responsible for developing the RFP, but all other facility planning requirements, including planning, permitting, design, construction and operations would be the responsibility of the Private Contractor. Given the control this option provides the Contractor, the County would need to carefully craft the RFP and contract language to ensure the County’s interests and needs are met. 5.4.3 Financial Considerations Under this option, the County would not be responsible for facility financing or operations and maintenance. This would allow the County to continue to operate under the current financial structure, where residential and commercial customers decide to direct haul to the transfer station or contract with a private hauler to haul to the transfer station. Either option would increase the cost to the Person County citizen compared to the current gate rate paid at the Upper Piedmont Landfill. 5.4.4 Disposal Considerations The County would not be responsible for disposal. 5.5 Direct Haul to Granville County 57 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 10 5.5.1 General Considerations Direct haul is more appropriate than waste transfer when hauls are relatively short and when waste tonnages are relatively low. The haul to the Granville County Landfill from the City of Roxboro is over 28 miles one-way. A haul from the western part of the County is over 40 miles one-way. Although these distances are significant, the low disposal rates within the County may make direct hauling more appealing than transfer. 5.5.2 Planning Considerations Although the general statutes only require the County assess and determine the adequacy of solid waste disposal and collection and although the County currently allows private subscription service in the unincorporated parts of the County, S+G does not recommend the County consider direct haul to Granville County without providing convenience center sites in the unincorporated parts of the County. 5.5.3 Financial Considerations Without any source of revenue, the County will need to fund any additional solid waste infrastructure through either the general fund or a solid waste enterprise fund as previously described. Regardless of the funding mechanism, the direct disposal cost to Person County citizens would increase compared to the current gate rate paid at the Upper Piedmont Landfill. 5.6 County-Owned Landfill 5.6.1 General Considerations S+G does not recommend the County consider the County-Owner landfill option, whether County or Private-Operated. S+G has previously researched the break- even point for a County-Owned landfill and determined that 300 tons per day (over 90,000 tons per year) is required to financially sustain landfill operations. Facilities disposing of significantly less waste than 300 tons per day typically require a similar level of investment in permitting, design and operations compared to a larger site. This places a strain on available resources resulting in services going unfunded and insufficient resources for facility operations. Currently the County generates less than 40,000 tons per year, and does not control the waste generated. Given these significant uncertainties, S+G does not see a scenario that would make a County owned landfill feasible. 58 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 11 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Although there are no alternative options that will be more economically favorable to the County than renegotiating the current franchise agreement, the County desires to review options that may provide a comparable level of service, while increasing intangible benefits. Following our qualitative review of the options S+G recommends the County consider the following three solid waste management options for a more thorough evaluation:  Renegotiation of the Franchise Agreement;  County-Owned and Private-Operated Transfer Station; and  Direct Haul to Granville County. Of the options presented herein, these options give the County an opportunity to provide citizens with a sufficient level of service, while allowing the County to control important aspects of disposal and risk. S+G does not recommend the County further review the County-Owned and Operated or Private-Owned and Operated Transfer Station. The County-Owned and Operated Transfer Station places a significant risk on the County given the limited amount of waste controlled by the County and requires the County to develop a solid waste department within the County’s organizational structure to manage the facility, staff, equipment and full-cost accounting of the system. Conversely, a Private-Owned and Operated Transfer Station minimizes the County’s risk but provides the County with limited control of the variables including facility location, operation and level of service to the citizen. Also, given the County’s waste generation rates, this would not be an attractive option for many Contractors, which could result in a non-competitive bid and higher costs. 59 Task 3.1 – Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Draft Study October 13, 2015 Page 12 This page intentionally left blank. 60 Appendix A September 21, 2015 Listening Session Response to PC Pride Concerns Qualitative Review of Disposal Options Solid Waste Management Study Person County, North Carolina 61 This page intentionally left blank. 62 After the listening session, PC Pride submitted additional information to the County summarizing their concerns. S+G reviewed this information and provides the following summary of concerns and responses. Concern Regarding Removal of Graves PC Pride expressed concern over the possibility of illegal removal of graves from the site during development. Removal of graves is allowed under provisions in North Carolina General Statute 65-106. This statute requires public notice and other provisions for the legal relocation of graves by a licensed archaeologist. These documents are not typically available on-line and therefore were not reviewed by S+G. Concern Regarding Disposal of Ash and PCB Soils and Use as Alternate Daily Cover Subtitle-D landfills are constructed with redundant systems to prevent contamination from entering the environment. These include a low permeability soil liner system, a geomembrane liner, and a leachate collection system. Due to the robust nature of the design, these landfills are allowed to accept a variety of waste products. Coal ash is an acceptable waste for disposal in a Subtitle-D landfill. Regarding the remediation of PCB soils from the Ward Transformer Site, and concerns regarding disposal of those soils, the remediation was completed under U.S. EPA and NCDENR (now NCDEQ) oversight, testing and approval. The soils were remediated through a process called Thermal Desorption prior to removal and disposal. Finally, some waste types may be accepted as Alternate Daily Cover (ADC). At the end of each day, the waste must be covered with some type of cover material (e.g. soil, tarps, posi-shell, or other ADC). Various types of ADC are acceptable once a landfill (any landfill in the State) has provided NCDEQ with a demonstration of why a particular ADC is acceptable. ADC material may include contaminated soils (up to certain concentrations of contamination), coal ash and other materials. The use of ADC is regulated and monitored by NCDEQ. ADC may not be used as final cover when a landfill area is closed, it is only allowed between daily layers of waste in an MSW landfill. Concern Regarding Removal of Wetlands and Streams Although the Solid Waste Rules state that a MSW landfill may not be constructed in a wetland or stream area, there are provisions for the removal of wetlands and streams through a permitting process regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers and NCDEQ prior to landfill development. This is a very common practice in North Carolina and many development projects (housing, industrial, etc.) have followed this process prior to development over impacted wetland areas. Concern Regarding Cancer Rates in the Landfill Vicinity The Department of Health and Human Services performed an evaluation of cancer rates in May 2015. This study indicated that there is no evidence of elevated incidence of cancer or even rare cancers in the area of Person County surrounding the landfill facility. Given that this Department is well versed in the performance and evaluation of cancer occurrence data, and the study was led by Dr. Gary Leung, a statistician from an unbiased public agency we find no reason to question the results of the study. 63 Concern Regarding Arsenic in Streams and Private Wells North Carolina is a mineral-rich state with a long history of mining. In some areas, the bedrock in Person County contains iron-sulfide minerals that are a natural source of arsenic in groundwater. Although the bedrock can be a natural source of arsenic, only through recent testing has the extent of arsenic in groundwater been evaluated across the State. In general, elevated concentrations have been detected across the State, with higher concentrations of arsenic in a southwestern trending area ranging from Person County down through Union County. These concentrations are attributed to the natural rock formations in this area. Furthermore, a review of the groundwater monitoring data from the Upper Piedmont Landfill indicates only extremely low concentrations of arsenic in the water samples collected in the monitoring wells closest to the landfill unit. The groundwater monitoring system was designed by a North Carolina licensed geologist or engineer to provide early detection of any impact the landfill may have on the uppermost aquifer at the site. The monitoring system design was reviewed by NCDEQ and approved. The results for arsenic in the groundwater samples collected from this monitoring system are well below the 10 parts per billion groundwater standard set by NCDEQ. Given the low concentrations of arsenic in the aquifer closest to the liner system, it is reasonable to conclude that higher concentrations that may be present in deeper wells are likely due to natural sources in bedrock and not the landfill. Post-Closure Responsibility Republic Services is required to perform monitoring and maintenance at the facility for a period of AT LEAST 30 years after closure. During the life of the site, and during post-closure, they are required by law to annually submit financial assurance documentation to NCDEQ proving their solvency for maintaining this commitment. 64 Person County Board of County CommissionersNovember 2, 20152015 Solid Waste Management StudyPresenters:W. Michael Brinchek, P.E.Joan A. Smyth, P.G.Disposal Options Review65 Renegotiate Current Franchise AgreementCounty-Owned and Operated Transfer StationCounty-Owned, Private-Operated Transfer StationPrivate-Owned and Operated Transfer StationDirect Haul to Granville County without TransferCounty-Owned and Operated LandfillCounty-Owned, Private-Operated LandfillS+G Reviewed the Following Options:66 Solid Waste Flow ControlIs the system impacted by the amount of waste flowing through the system and does that impact the County? Minimum Regulatory RequirementsDoes the system provide a level of service that is commensurate with State requirements Program FundingHow will the program be funded?Planning Considerations67 Person County Solid Waste Generation39,000 tons annually7,000 tons City of RoxboroOver 50% of Solid Waste is Commercial or IndustrialPerson County has Limited Control of Solid WasteRevenues from Tipping Fees will be Difficult to PredictSolid Waste Flow Control68 Renegotiate Current Franchise AgreementDevelop a County-Owned, Private-Operated Transfer StationDirect Haul to Granville County without TransferS+G Recommends the County Consider:69 Provides the County with the most Economically Favorable OptionCounty receives over $580,000 annuallyTipping fees for citizens are stableDoes not Require any Additional InfrastructureDoes not Impact the Level of Service to City of RoxboroRenegotiate Current Franchise Agreement70 Requires a New Transfer Station or Renovation of the Existing Transfer StationAllows the County to Control the Permit and ServiceMinimizes County’s RiskIncreases Roxboro’s Disposal CostsRequires Funding through:General Fund•Dependent on tax revenues•Susceptible to public policyEnterprise Fund•Requires full-cost accounting•Requires self-supporting revenues through household feesCounty-Owned, Private-Operated Transfer Station71 Requires the County Invest in Solid Waste Convenience Center Sites for Waste DisposalRequires the County Manage Convenience Center Sites In-house or through Private Contract Increases Roxboro’s Disposal CostsRequires County Funding through:General Fund•Dependent on tax revenues•Susceptible to public policyEnterprise Fund•Requires full-cost accounting•Requires self-supporting revenues through household feesDirect Haul to Granville County w/o Transfer72 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Person County Health Department Water Sample Fee Requests Summary of Information: In accordance with the North Carolina General Statute 130A-39(g), the Board of Health requests the approval of the Board of Commissioners to implement the proposed fees which are listed below: Hexavalent Chromium Water Sample = $110.00 Coal Ash Panel = $95.00 Recommended Action: Approve recommended fees. Submitted By: Janet Clayton, Health Director 73 74 75 AGENDA ABSTRACT Meeting date: November 2, 2015 Agenda Title: Internal Service Fund Ordinance: Self-Funded Health Insurance Program Summary of Information: Finance Director requests approval of an Internal Service Fund Ordinance as required by N.C.G.S. 159.13.1 that creates the financial plan for all revenues and expenditures that support the self-funded health insurance program for County employees and retirees. The sources of revenue in this fund will primarily include the health contributions from the County, contributions from employees, and contributions from retirees. The uses of expenditures will include any associated fees to administer the program, as well as the actual benefits and claims payments made on behalf of its recipients. Approximate estimate of $2.9M reflects the County’s broker recommendation that was presented and approved by the Board of Commissioners in May of this year. Recommended Action: To approve the ordinance as presented. Submitted By: Amy Wehrenberg, Finance Director 76 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND ORDINANCE FOR FY 2015-16 COUNTY OF PERSON BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Commissioners of Person County, North Carolina, that, pursuant to Section 13.1 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following Internal Service Fund Ordinance is hereby adopted: Section 1. These financial plans are hereby established for the purpose of accounting for the County of Person’s Internal Service Fund. Section 2. The officers of this unit are hereby authorized to carry out this financial plan as approved. Section 3. The following revenue and expenditure accounts are hereby established: Estimated Revenues: Health Plan Contributions $ 2,911,900 Interest Income 1,000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,912,900 Estimated Expenditures: Health Plan Admin Fees $ 565,000 Benefits/Claims Payments 2,347,900 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,912,900 Section 4. Copies of these financial plans shall be furnished to the Clerk to the Governing Board, and to the Budget Officer and the Finance Director to be kept on file by them for their direction in the disbursement of County funds. Section 5. Adopted this 2nd day of November 2015. __________________________________ __________________________________ Kyle W. Puryear, Chairman Brenda B. Reaves Person County Board of Commissioners Clerk to the Board 77