Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090303 APPROVED 5/5/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING March 3, 2009 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Central Orange Senior Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, 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. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Aqua sheet- current water levels Lavender sheet— information on the revaluation process Beige sheet- explanation of taxation of public service companies Pink sheet- revised attachment to item 6-a, Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services in Orange County Melon sheet- PowerPoint presentation for Item 6-c, Orange County Percent for Art Programs Yellow sheet- memo from the County Manager on the Federal Stimulus Projects Commissioner Foushee said that Commissioner Jacobs could not be here this evening due to work obligations. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. County Manager Laura Blackmon and Budget Director Donna Coffey made the following presentation (lavender sheet): Revaluation at a Glance March 3, 2009 • Mandated by the North Carolina General Statutes governing property tax assessments • A systematic, in-depth process of reappraising all the real property in the county to market value • Necessary in order to maintain equitable and uniform property values among property owners throughout the county. How Will Revaluation Impact the Amount of Taxes I Pay? Error! Not a valid link. What To Do If You Do Not Agree With Your New Value Prior to April 1, 2009 contact the Orange County Tax Assessor's Office • Telephone: (919) 245-2100 • Physical Location: 2nd floor, Gateway Center, 228 South Churton Street, Hillsborough • Mail: Orange County Tax Assessor's Office, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278 After April 1, appeals must be made in writing to the Board of Equalization and Review, PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278. Appeals filed after the adjournment of the Board of Equalization and Review will be heard during the following tax year. Tax Relief for Elderly and Permanently Disabled Elderly and permanently disabled taxpayers may apply for assistance with paying their tax bills. No later than June 1, taxpayers must apply, in writing, for tax relief. Geof Gledhill said that he had provided the Board of County Commissioners with a letter dated January 30th about whether the Board of County Commissioners could undo the revaluation and the conclusion is that once tax values have been determined as a result of the revaluation process, the process cannot be reversed and the values have to remain for this year subject to the appeal process. The appeal process has several steps and the first is an informal meeting with the Tax Assessor and the taxpayer presents evidence that the value of the property is incorrect. Secondly, there is an opportunity to appeal to the Orange County Board of Equalization and Review. If the taxpayer is not happy with that decision, the taxpayer can appeal to the North Carolina Tax Commission. The Board of County Commissioners did have in its power to undo the revaluation process at any time prior to January 1, 2009. It was not until this date that the values were determined based on revaluation, so the Board of County Commissioners adopted in September 2008 a Schedule of Values, which is the basis of all values taxed by the Tax Assessor. Now the County is legally committed to the determination of property values made pursuant to the Schedule of Values. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Tom Whisnant said that he has been asked to speak by the Orange County Tax Revolt Committee. He said that a lot of people could not get into the room tonight due to the occupancy limitations. He said that on the night the County Commissioners were sworn in as Board of County Commissioners the citizens placed their trust in them to lead them into the future for good or bad, but no one saw the economic downturn. He sees this across the board and people are upset about the recent revaluation. He is a State Certified Residential Appraiser and he has seen property values double, triple, and more. He said that he does not see any basis for this and it is not a coincidence that so many people are showing up for these meetings. This has never happened in past revaluations. He looks at this as an opportunity for the County Commissioners as the leaders to stand up and make a tough decision and to rescind this revaluation. He said that other counties have rescinded their revaluations since January 1st - Rockingham County, Stanley County, and Caldwell County. He submitted a letter from an attorney in Eden, who has served on the North Carolina Attorney General's Office. He read several sentences from the letter, which is incorporated by reference. "I understand that the Orange County Commissioners have been told that they cannot legally stop the revaluation at this time. I believe that this information is absolutely incorrect. There is a statute that clearly states that a revaluation shall be conducted at least every eight years. As long as the eight- year limitation is observed, County Commissioners are given freedom to set a different and lesser period which you all have done in Orange County. There is absolutely no statutory provision that you cannot change the period as long as the reassessment is done within eight years. If the legislature had wanted to provide that once making a decision to shorten the revaluation period a county board cannot change its mind such a provision could and would certainly have been placed in the statute. The fact that it was not placed within the statute clearly indicates that the legislature had no such intent. Certainly, it would be absurd for a legislature to take the position that you have no authority to rescind this revaluation if you believe that such should be done." He said that if there is such a statutory limitation on the rights to rescind the revaluation, he would like to know where that is. He also submitted an article about Rockingham County unanimously rescinding its revaluation. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7:21 PM. Clem Self spoke about the increase in property value in the area of North Graham Street. She said that the homes in these communities are more than 50 years old and the income bases do not match the property values bestowed upon the homes. She said that if the revaluations continue, they will be in "taxclosure" versus foreclosure. She said that people moved into these communities because they could afford it. She said that the citizens feel that the County is allowing people from other states to move into the communities and dictate what the property values should be because they find it cheaper to live here. She asked the County Commissioners to be considerate of the citizens that have lived here all of their lives. Mike Strayhorn said that his family came to Orange County in the 1740's. He said that this revaluation is the most absurd revaluation he has ever seen and he is a real estate practitioner. He said that his clients are concerned about how the revaluation is handled. He said that Orange County's Tax Assessor started announcing early on that citizens were going to be concerned about their taxes. Most of the property value in Orange County went up 22%. He said that his home in Hillsborough went up 52% in four years and something needs to be done. He said that every homeowner that feels they have been wronged by these incorrect analyses needs to be heard. Robert Hollister said that his property value went up 91% and he considers this to be unfair. He asked the County Commissioners to do something about this. Cynthia Shriner is also a real estate practitioner. She said that she has also reviewed the statutes and she respectfully disagrees with the County Attorney that the County Commissioners can rescind the revaluations. She elaborated on this. Lucian Mascarella said that this lavender sheet is different from what has happened since 1993. He said that his taxes have increased every year and to have .80 as a neutral tax rate is not going to happen. He said that the handout is very misleading and revaluation is not the only thing that determines a tax rate. He said that when this first came up, he disagreed with all of it and contacted all the County Commissioners and heard from three, especially Commissioner Yuhasz. Carl Merritt said that his taxes have been going up every year and he protests each time. He also has a house in Alamance County and the last revaluation went down, but his home in Orange County went up. Dave Laudicina said that the purple sheet is insulting and is not reality. He said that citizens are all scared that they are not going to be able to live in their homes. He said that since 2005, his taxes went up 20%. He said that the increases get compounded every year. He said this is a runaway train and the citizens are paying for services they do not get. He asked the County Commissioners to give them a break. P.H. Craig said that he has lived here since 1939 and is a real estate broker. He said that he wrote the editorial in the Herald Sun and if all of these people appeal, Orange County will have to go out and get real appraisals, which will be very expensive. He said that appraisers are so busy and all of the appraisals will jam the system. He said that the appraisal process is different now and the County only looks at statistics. He said that rescinding this will be the most economical way to deal with this. Way Long is a homeowner in Chapel Hill. He asked the County Commissioners to publish the revaluation schedule that was implemented. He said that many volunteers are willing to fight against this revaluation and they are organized. Ken Latta said that his family came here in 1760. He said that his daughter is now applying for college and he has been told that he will have to pay up to $51,000 per child. He said that this is about 60% of his salary and will eat up all the equity that Orange County says that he has in his house. Rory Roth said that he is a scientist and this week's Time magazine has a graph where the houses peak in 2007. He said that the assessment should go back to the year 2003, which would be a decrease of 10%. Rachel Clayton said that her son lives in Atlanta and got his tax statement and his taxes have been frozen and did not go up. She said that her home is going up $40,000 and some people will not be able to pay their taxes. Bertha Carr lives on US 70 and she offered her property up for sale. Laurie Wolf said that most people have lost half of what they have saved in the past few years. She said that the County Commissioners need to consider this and people need relief. Worth Johnson asked about the process that was used. He said that his wife inherited some land and it cannot be subdivided, but it went up 38% from the last revaluation. The adjoining properties only went up 5-12%. He asked how this could be justified. David McFarland said that he is not a pauper and his revaluation went up about 200,000 for his properties this year and he and his wife have to save $2,500 a month to pay taxes for his rental properties. He said that this is totally unfair, especially under these economic conditions. Dan Bennett said that he is living on an old family farm on Damascus Church Road and his parents' part of the farm went up over$115,000. He said that the County Commissioners are supposed to be stewards of the citizens and to take care of them. He does not know how his parents are going to pay for this. Commissioner Foushee said that the County Commissioners share the citizens' concerns and will consider everything that was said. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations - NONE 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. b. Appointments — None c. Jail Inspection Report The Board received the jail inspection report for January 22, 2009 from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. d. Approve Purchase of Additional Licenses and Related Hardware for Existing Electronic Document Management System for Social Services The Board authorized the purchase of the remainder of the licenses needed for full implementation of Social Services' Electronic Document Management System and authorized the Purchasing Director to sign the documents. e. Women's History Month Proclamation The Board approved a proclamation recognizing March 2009 as Women's History month in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign. f. Boards and Commissions The Board approved the list of boards and commissions on which members of the County Commissioners have chosen to serve. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2009 The Board amended its regular meeting calendar by adding a location for the Legislative Breakfast meeting on Monday, April 20, 2009 at the Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough, North Carolina. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: a. Minutes The Board considered correcting and/or approving the minutes from January 29 and February 3, 2009 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. Commissioner Foushee said that Commissioner Jacobs wanted to pull the February 3, 2009 minutes only due to a controversy over the paving of Ben Wilson Road. The January 29th minutes were included in the consent agenda and approved. 5. Public Hearings a. Public Hearing on the Issuance of Alternative Financing for Capital Projects and Equipment and Adoption of Resolution The Board considered conducting a public hearing on the proposed issuance of up to $33,617,000 in alternative financing for capital projects and equipment and adopting a resolution supporting an application to the Local Government Commission for approval of the financing arrangements. Financial Services Director Gary Humphreys summarized this item. The Orange County Board of Commissioners has previously approved the following capital projects: - Acquisition and equipping of the County portion of the Gateway Center, County Office Building, and Library - $25,000,000 - Parks and Open Space Projects - $5,500,000 - Affordable Housing Projects - $1,400,000 - Solid Waste Equipment- $217,000 - Property Management Information System (PIMS) - $1,500,000 In addition, the Board made a preliminary determination to finance costs for these projects by the use of an installment contract as authorized under Section 160A-20 of the North Carolina general Statutes in an amount not to exceed $33,617,000. After the required public hearing, the Board is required to make certain findings of fact, which are included in the resolution, as shown below: Resolution supporting an application to the Local Government Commission for its approval of alternative financing arrangements for the County WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Commissioners has previously determined to undertake certain capital projects, as further described below: Project Approximate Amount To Be Financed Acquisition and equipping of County portion $25,000,000 of Gateway Center, County office building and library, and library development Parks and open space projects $5,500,000 Affordable housing projects $1,400,000 Solid waste equipment $217,000 Property management information system $1,500,000 The Board has previously made a preliminary determination to finance costs for these projects by the use of an installment contract, as authorized under Section 160A-20 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Under the guidelines of the North Carolina Local Government Commission, this governing body must make certain findings of fact to support the County's application for the LGC's approval of the County's proposed financing arrangements. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, that the County confirms its preliminary determination to carry out and finance the projects described above. The Board will make a final determination of the projects and amounts to be financed, and make a final approval of financing terms and conditions, by a subsequent resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners makes the following findings of fact: (1) The proposed projects are necessary and appropriate for the County under all the circumstances. The Gateway Center, office building and library projects will provide needed space for County functions in a cost-effective manner. The parks, open space and affordable housing projects will help carry out County policies that have been repeatedly approved by the Board. The solid waste and property management information system projects will provide needed equipment useful in maintaining and improving the efficiency of County operations. (2) The proposed installment financing is preferable to a bond issue for the same purpose under all the circumstances. The County has no meaningful ability to issue general obligation bonds for the Gateway Center, office building, library, solid waste equipment or PIM system. These financings are for discrete facilities and therefore particularly suitable for installment financing. Although the parks, open space and affordable housing projects represent projects for which the County's voters have approved general obligation bonds, it is more cost effective to finance those projects in this larger installment financing than to proceed with a separate bond financing for the relatively small amount of authorized bonds. None of these projects will produce any revenues that could be used to support a self- liquidating financing. The County has chosen to finance these projects through installment financing as part of a balanced capital finance program that includes both installment financings and voter-approved bonds. (3) The estimated sums to fall due under the proposed financing contract are adequate and not excessive for the proposed purpose. The County will obtain competitive lending proposals, and will closely review proposed lending rates against market rates with guidance from the LGC. Amounts to be financed for each project will reflect contract prices or other firm costs, except that the amount to be financed now for the PIM system reflects an estimate of initial financing needs and may be supplemented. (4) As confirmed to the Board at this meeting by the County's Finance Officer, (a) the County's debt management procedures and policies are sound and in compliance with law, and (b) the County is not in default under any of its debt service obligations. (5) The County estimates that debt service on this financing will have a maximum tax rate equivalent impact of approximately 2.33 cents. This debt service impact will be higher in initial years, although the County expects to complete financing arrangements that reduce debt service payable in the 2009-2010 fiscal year. This debt service impact is contemplated in the County's existing capital investment program and is consistent with the Board's previously- approved debt policies. (6) The County Attorney is of the opinion that the proposed projects are authorized by law and are purposes for which public funds of the County may be expended pursuant to the Constitution and laws of North Carolina. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all actions of the County's Finance Officer and other County representatives in filing an application with the LGC for its approval of the project and the proposed financing arrangements, and otherwise in furtherance of the completion of the contemplated financing, are ratified, approved and confirmed, and that this resolution takes effect immediately. Commissioner Gordon said that she needed clarification about the amount of money to be requested. Gary Humphreys said that the total amount of projects is $33,617,000, but in order to qualify for the bank qualification, it would have to be reduced to $30 million. There was no public comment. Commissioner Gordon said that she has been looking at the financial impact of this debt issuance and the county's policy about debt. She said that she could not vote for this until she knows more about the effect this debt has on the county's debt capacity. She said she could not agree with Finding #1 of the resolution that the proposed projects are necessary and appropriate for the County under all circumstances. She also would like to know which properties the County is going to divest. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing, make the findings of fact as set forth in the attached resolution for the projects and the proposed financing as prescribed under the guidelines of the North Carolina Local Government Commission; and adopt the resolution supporting the application to the Local Government Commission for approval of the financing arrangements. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Board is supposed to be seeing something on March 17th about possibly delaying some of this. Commissioner Gordon said that this should be discussed on March 51h at the budget work session. 6. Regular Agenda a. Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services System in Orange County The Board received a strategy for reengaging a fire/rescue study and considered authorizing an informal solicitation of competitive proposals from qualified organizations to conduct Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Service System in Orange County. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca summarized the abstract. BACKGROUND: Since arriving in the spring of 2008, the new Emergency Services Director has been very aware and actively working with the Fire Chiefs and other County staff to develop a thoughtful and thorough approach for initiating a new fire/rescue study. Attached is a memo offering an historical perspective on the last study and the reasons there is sustained interest. Conceptual outlines and updates on a new study were provided to the BOCC by the Director during September 2008. In November 2008 the Fire Chief's Council participated in a free and open discussion of what they felt a new fire/rescue study could encompass as well as related steps to ensure "history would not repeat itself". This session was facilitated by the Purchasing and Central Services Director and attended by the Emergency Services Director and Assistant County Manager. The Chiefs Council named three primary members (and three alternates) to serve on the project steering committee who will also serve as evaluators of responses to a new request for proposals. Based upon this groundwork and further review with County management and Purchasing on procedural steps, Emergency Services in conjunction with the steering committee recommend the BOCC consider a modified strategy and approach for moving a new study forward. The suggested strategy divides an overall comprehensive study of the fire/rescue service system in Orange County into three separate, sequential phases designed to provide clear and defensible answers to three basic questions: (1) Where are we now? (2) Where do we want to go? (3) How do we get there? A successful study will adhere to the principles and priorities articulated by the BOCC and the Fire Chiefs Council. It will: • Initiate an actionable strategic plan • Involve critical stakeholders • Include Northern Chatham and Southern Orange • Employ recognized industry standards • Factor six-mile districts • Address fire insurance ratings • Critique economies of scale and/or shared use — staffing; facilities, equipment • Examine efficiencies and services enhancements • Calculate long term sustainability and fire district financing • Strengthen support and connections; i.e., fire inspections and prevention. County staff believes the suggested strategy would enable all stakeholders to coalesce around the following set of commitments: • Commitment to a clear purpose • Commitment to established priorities • Commitment to a factual study tied to industry norms and professional standards • Commitment to openness and objectivity in choosing a highly qualified consultant • Commitment to continuous communication and collaboration between the consultant and County/Fire Chiefs • Commitment to instilling and maintaining trust and transparency throughout all phases and through public participation Phase One: "Where are we now?" Phase One is a thorough review of the current status of fire/rescue services in Orange County, examining organizational structures, staffing, resources, operating and capital budgets, and current service delivery profiles. The resulting data would be analyzed compared to Federal and state laws and regulations that apply to fire and rescue operations, such as: • Fire Prevention and Protection Act, 1997 • State Public Fire Safety Guidelines • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 and 1720 pertinent to the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public by career and volunteer fire and EMS departments Data collected will parallel to the greatest extent practicable that necessary for any fire/rescue organization choosing to work towards achieving national accreditation. The approved final work product from Phase One would become the baseline for determining Phases Two and Three. County staff further recommends the Phase One final work product be presented to the public through one or more input and feedback sessions using an external facilitator. Findings from the feedback sessions would assist the steering committee in developing the formal RFP for Phase Two. The BOCC would approve the contract award for Phase Two. Phase One should take approximately 3-6 months from contract execution and cost an estimated $20,000- $25,000. The expert facilitation of public sessions is estimated at $5000-$7500. Phase Two: " Where do we want to go?" Phase Two is an environmental analysis focusing on fire/rescue services delivery in a modern and increasingly urban community with changes anticipated in population, demographics, urban development, the transportation network and other factors over the next five to ten years. The consultant would be directed to return with projections and scenarios for providing the most appropriate level of services within Orange County, identifying the risk factors, trigger points, and resource requirements involved in decision making. Phase Two may take approximately 3-6 months from contract execution and cost an estimated $25,000-$35,000. Phase Three: "How do we get there?" Phase Three is the development of a collaborative and detailed action plan built upon community values, best industry practices, risk management, and fiscal responsibility. The completed report would provide a strategy and financial roadmap for delivering a defined and acceptable level of fire/rescue services throughout the County. The ultimate "vision" on level of service and ability to pay is a decision to be made by the appointed and elected leadership based on sound information and public participation. The BOCC is responsible for setting the annual fire district tax rates and authorizing the annual budget for Emergency Services with related revenue from fire inspection fees. Phase Three may take approximately 6-8 months from contract execution and cost an estimated $35,000-$45,000. Initiating Phase One County staff and Fire Chiefs Council representatives believe an informal solicitation should be made to receive competitive proposals from a small group of pertinent professional associations with the demonstrated knowledge and experience to conduct a Phase One assessment. Four highly specialized and nationally recognized expert organizations with strong skills in research, publication, training, and technical consultation in the industry have been identified and expressed an interest in submitting a competitive proposal. 1) International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) 2) International City and County Manager's Association (ICMA) Public Safety Services 3) Oklahoma State University (Fire and Emergency Management Administration) 4) Texas A & M University (Emergency Services Training Institute) Emergency Services and County management will work with Purchasing/Central Services and Legal to issue a legal and proper informal solicitation letter to the four organizations and conduct an appropriate interview and evaluative process. The steering committee will consider the knowledge, resources and reputation of the respondents; quality and depth of credentials/experience; demonstrated understanding and approach to Orange County interests and concerns; and availability and overall cost to perform the necessary tasks. It is stressed that the County does not want a ready-made template. The successful organization will bring a custom approach in response to a unique environment and local needs. The steering committee will recommend a contract award to the BOCC for approval. If the BOCC authorizes the proposed strategy, the steering committee could be prepared to make a recommendation by the second meeting in April 2009. Phase One Phases Two and Three are believed to be better suited to the more traditional Request for Proposal (RFP) process whereby the County advertises nationally for private, for- profit vendors with expertise and experience in performing similar government studies. The technical consultant chosen to conduct the Phase One assessment will also be able to give advice on the probable costs and magnitude of time required for the next consultant to execute Phase Two and Phase Three. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds in the total amount of $50,000 are currently available within the Emergency Services Department budget to re-engage a study. Funds not expended for Phase One will be carried forward to support Phase Two and Three as necessary. The total estimated price tag for all phases is $112,000 over a projected period of 32 months (spring 2009 —fall 2012). RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board 1. Approve the suggested approach for re-engaging in a comprehensive Fire/Rescue study in three phases — Phase One: Where are we now? Phase Two: Where do we want to go? Phase Three: How do we get there? 2. Authorize the County to conduct an informal solicitation of the four qualified technical/research organizations in the fire/rescue profession to submit competitive proposals to perform Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services System in Orange County Commissioner Pelissier asked for an analysis of the previous study so that the same mistakes are not made. Frank Montes de Oca said that UNC gave an opinion about the last study, and he will get this to the Board. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he wants to look at all emergency services along with fire and rescue in the first phase. Commissioner Gordon agreed that it is a good idea to say fire, rescue, and emergency services. She said that on a parallel track, she would like to update the addressing system. She said that it concerns her that phase one is not definite and she would like a more detailed proposal as to what the firms are being asked to look at and the lessons that have been learned from the last study. She is also concerned that each phase is so long. Frank Montes de Oca said that the first study was done very quickly and he wants a better quality study. Laura Blackmon said that staff is only asking for approval of the strategy tonight. Commissioner Foushee asked that the Board be able to see a draft of the RFP prior to it going out. PUBLIC COMMENT: Earl McKee lives in the Caldwell Community and he helped organize the fire department there. He said that he takes a different angle. He said that this assessment is a bad idea and a fire and rescue study should include all departments involved in emergency response and narrowing it down to just fire and rescue is not right. He said that any concerns can be addressed through the Fire Chief's Council. He asked if this effort was more about control of independent contract entities than problems with those departments. He said that there is also a cost factor, and $25,000 was already wasted with the last study. He thinks that this would be a waste of time and money. Commissioner Gordon said that his point is well taken. She asked about the services that were covered in the study and Frank Montes de Oca said that they are covering all services except the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the first phase could be done, looking at additional costs for the other phases. Frank Montes de Oca said that there would most likely be a report after phase one and the Board would decide if it wanted to continue. Commissioner Pelissier said that phase three would build on community values, including volunteer fire departments. She does not want to see the County take over the volunteer fire departments. She wants to clarify the role of the volunteer fire departments. Frank Montes de Oca said that the County could not afford to pay for all of these fire departments, and there will be an analysis of the volunteer fire departments. Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that after phase one, the report comes back to the Board and then there is a session with the public about community values before moving to phase two. Commissioner Gordon said that the Board should only commit to the first phase to see what comes of that. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to authorize the County to conduct an informal solicitation of the four qualified technical/research organizations in the fire/rescue profession to submit competitive proposals to perform Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services System in Orange County, incorporating the comments from this meeting. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Chair Foushee) b. Orange County Property Naming Policy The Board considered a draft revision of the Orange County Facility Naming Policy. Laura Blackmon said that this is a draft policy to see if this is following what the Board of County Commissioners would like the staff to follow. This is a new format borrowed from the Health Department for Orange County property. She summarized the draft policy. Draft Proposed Orange County Property Naming Policy Policy x.x "Policy Statement" County owned buildings, facilities and land shall bear such names as the Orange County Board of Commissioners shall approve pursuant to this policy. This policy follows all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Purpose This policy is to establish the Board of County Commissioners as the responsible authority for naming County buildings, facilities, and land. Guidelines 2.1. The naming of public buildings, facilities and land shall be done only by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution adopted by majority vote. 2.1.1. Property to be given names or titles shall be either owned by Orange County government or leased by Orange County government for its use. 2.1.2. Properties to be named or given a title include buildings, any areas in buildings, other physical facilities, collections of books, records or other printed or audio- visual materials, land or water areas 2.1.3. Official names or titles for property belonging to the County shall only be changed by the Board of County Commissioners as it deems appropriate. 2.1.4. Current names for property belonging to the County shall remain the same unless changed by the Board of County Commissioners upon relocation or change in function of the property. 2.1.5. No property belonging to Orange County shall be named for living persons with the following exceptions. a. Living persons who make a significant monetary contribution to the development of a public building or facility when such a contribution is made with the intent and agreement of the Board of County Commissioners that said building or facility will be named for the contributor b. Leased property that has been conferred a name by the lessor that is a person's name need not be renamed if it has locational or other value 2.1.6 Official names or titles for property belonging to or leased by the County shall be based upon geographical, historical, ecological, functional, or other such factors as the Board of County Commissioners deems appropriate. If a geographical reference of locational value is derived from the name of a person, such as a street name, it may be used in naming County property. a. A public building/facility under construction/renovation or land purchased for park development or conservation/preservation will be given a "working title" which will only become the official title of the property when formally approved as such by the BOCC b. Memorial naming of a public building, facility or land is in addition to the official title of the building/facility/land and is bestowed in accordance with Section 2.2 of this policy c. Leased property naming will respect historical names that may already be attached to the facility or as may be negotiated with the owner of the building. 2.1.7 Exceptions to this policy of naming property belonging to the County may be made by the Board of County Commissioners as it deems appropriate. 2.1.8 This policy does not apply to the naming of public streets, roads, alleys and other similar thoroughfares. 2.1.9 This policy shall not be construed as the mechanism for selling the permanent naming rights to County structures, buildings, facilities or land. 2.2. Memorial Naming ( in honor of a deceased individual) of Public Buildings, Facilities, or Land: In the event Orange County wishes to honor a deceased individual by naming a public building, facility or land after such an individual, the following shall apply: 2.2.1. The person who is being honored by such a memorial shall have made a significant contribution to the well-being and betterment of Orange County. 2.2.2. The party requesting a memorial shall submit a brief biography of the person to Orange County government for recording purposes. 2.2.3. The memorial naming of a public building, facility or land will be in addition to the official name as defined in Section 2.1.6 of this policy. 2.2.4. Renaming a public building, facility or land which has previously been named in honor of or in memorial to an individual shall only be done in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the Board. Procedures 2.3. A public building/facility under construction/renovation or land purchased for park development or conservation/preservation shall be given a "working title" by staff for easy identification of the property. 2.4. The proposed naming of a public building, facility or land may be generated in the following manner. a. Staff shall recommend to the BOCC an official title of the public building, facility or land in accordance with Section 2.1.6 of this policy. Such recommended by staff will be made prior to the completion of any project to construct, renovate or develop the property. b. Any person, firm or association may propose a name for a County owned building, facility or land by submitting the proposal in writing to the County Manager or Clerk to the Board. c. Under certain circumstances the BOCC may wish to set in place a public process for soliciting input in the official naming of a public building, facility or land. 2.5. The County Manager shall prepare a report with recommendations for the proposed naming of the public building, facility or land and present it to the BOCC for consideration at a regularly scheduled public meeting. 2.6. Upon receipt of the report and the recommendations of the manager the BOCC will state its intent to consider the adoption of a resolution for the naming or renaming of the public building, facility or land at the next or some subsequent meeting as determined by the BOCC. 2.7. The Board may determine the public building, facility or land is of significant public interest and direct a notice be published informing the public of the Board's intent to consider the naming or renaming of the public building, facility or land and fix a time and place for a public hearing on the question. 2.8. Upon approval of the resolution by the BOCC, the public building, facility or land shall bear the name assigned to it from and after the date of Board action or such subsequent date as the BOCC may prescribe. Commissioner Hemminger said that there should be guidelines about naming a building for a living person. Commissioner Pelissier said that on 2.4b, under Procedures, it should be added that all recommendations would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon said that 2.1.9 should be "non-permanent." Also, she thinks that 2.2.4 does not need to be in there and Chair Foushee suggested leaving it in. Chair Foushee said that it prohibits a future Board from undoing a memorial name given to a building from a previous Board of County Commissioners. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to approve the draft policy with the changes —2.4b as stated by Commissioner Pellisier and adding "non-permanent" in 2.1.9. Geof Gledhill suggested a change in language to 2.2.4 — "Renaming a public building, facility, or land which has previously been named in honor of or in memorial of an individual shall only be done in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the Board." The Board agreed with this language. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Orange County Percent for Art Program The Board considered establishing an Orange County Percent for Art Program by Resolution and Ordinance. Gordon Jamison, an artist and resident in Orange County and member of the Arts Commission, summarized this item. He said that this Percent for Art would ensure a continued commitment to art in Orange County. In North Carolina, there are Percent for Art programs in Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, and Mecklenburg County. He asked the County Commissioners to adopt the proposed resolution. He introduced Jeffrey York, Public Art Administrator for the Town of Chapel Hill, and Janet Kagan, Chair of the Public Art Network, Americans for the Arts. Jeffrey York pointed out the public art projects that Orange County was involved in for Chapel Hill — aquatics center and Southern Park. Janet Kagan said that there are about 450 art programs across the nation and she reviewed statistics for the Percent for Art programs across North Carolina. She said that these programs require a professional staff. Martha Shannon said that public art could also be included in public schools. Commissioner Hemminger said that she has worked on four different Percent for Art projects and it was frustrating because of the lack of funds, but in the end, each project enhanced the facility it became a part of. The project became more connected to the community. She is concerned about doing it for school buildings or renovations of school buildings, since they do their own art. However, she is supportive of it for public projects. Commissioner Nelson said that he is very excited about the possibility of doing this and he thanked the Arts Commission. He said that this represents the community and he believes this is important, but he is concerned about economic times. Commissioner Pelissier suggested not doing the 1% at this time because of the message to the public economically. She is very conflicted about this. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested looking at this when it can be done and tying it to some external economic indicator. He made reference to Section 4a and said that he is concerned that the first sentence says that, "the BOCC shall consider the appropriation of 1%," and then the last sentence says, "the minimum amount to be appropriated for artwork shall be the total Eligible Construction Budgets multiplied by 0.01." He would like to get this clarified. Also, in Section 4n, he has a problem with committing 1% for art projects related to a building and then not using the money in that building. Chair Foushee made reference to Section 5c and said that the wording is contradictory regarding "deemed eligible" and "not appropriate." Commissioner Yuhasz said that 1% of $3 million is some money, but 1% of $25 million is significantly more money. He said that 1% is an admirable goal, but it may not be appropriate in every construction project. Chair Foushee said that she would not want to mandate schools to use funds to add public art to their facilities. Commissioner Gordon said that this is an admirable goal, but the timing is bad now. Commissioner Nelson agreed and said that the Board could review this and address it again when the economy picks up again. He wants to have a work session with the Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer this matter to the staff to be put on the agenda for a work session and invite the Arts Commission to attend. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reports a. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Recommendations — BOCC 2009/2010 Priority The Board received a report outlining Planning Staff's recommendations for beginning Comprehensive Plan implementation during Fiscal Year 2009/2010. Planning Director Craig Benedict gave this report. The report focused on Priorities P- 2a and 2b: Priority P-2a — Implement Comprehensive Plan — Small Area Plans Implementation and Process for Implementation of Plan Objectives by Annual Work Plan Priority P-2b — Implement Comprehensive Plan — Rewrite Zoning and Subdivision Regulations [Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)] There was a work plan in the agenda package. Priority 2 includes Items 1 and 2 in the agenda packet. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Unified Development Ordinance and the letter on page 30 and said that she thought the plan was to rewrite the ordinance in the new format rather than change it. Craig Benedict said that there are some changes that could fill the gaps in the UDO. Commissioner Pelissier said that when this does get approved as a work plan, she would like official correspondence back to the Planning Board on the resolution. She suggested having a work session to clarify how to proceed. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Economic Development Strategic Plan needs to lead this in consultation with the Board and to make sure the County has the right places to do the things that need to be done. Chair Foushee asked about what is being proposed for the UDO and the $29,000 to bring a consultant in-house. Craig Benedict said that the Board will see these numbers again in the budget work sessions. Commissioner Gordon said that she supports Commissioner Pelissier regarding the Planning Board's resolution and a follow up on page 6-7. She stressed how major this is and that a decision needs to be made before a lot of work is done. 8. Board Comments Commissioner Hemminger said that she, Commissioner Pelissier, and Commissioner Yuhasz attended the SOG conference and it was very educational. Commissioner Gordon said that the two MPO's passed their long-range plans. The Transportation Advisory Committee of the DCHC MPO passed its list and the Orange County projects included the Orange Grove Road Extension and the Orange Grove Road pedestrian bridge. She said that there is legislation coming forward to allow for a 1/2-cent sales tax for transit. Commissioner Nelson left at 10:08 PM Commissioner Gordon said that TTA is working on its own plans to do bus transit in an economical manner. TTA is also involved in trying to facilitate information about transit projects. Commissioner Gordon reported that the Advisory Board on Aging is supposed to have a forum on March 23rd on legislative issues from 1:30-3:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. Commissioner Pelissier— none. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he attended the Board of Health meeting last week and saw the proposed budget, and it will be a painful budget season for everyone. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the informational item about accessory dwelling units and asked if these needed to be exempt from impact fees. He wants to consider this. He asked that staff bring some information back on this. Chair Foushee — none. 9. County Manager's Report 10. Appointments 11. Information Items • Senior Congregate Meals —Transition to the Department on Aging Proposed in FY09-10 Budget • Memo to Board of Commissioners from Planning Director on Student Generation Rates and Accessory Dwelling Units 12. Closed Session-NONE 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:14 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board