Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-055 - Debt Issuance Costs and Transfers Capital Project Ordinanceo,e,©- otoo g. U.~S" 11 ~l~d~ra v e c~ ~ -~~ D.9 ~- 26 Attachment 2s Debt Issuance Costs and Transfers Capital Project Ordinance Be it ordained by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following capital project ordinance is hereby adopted. Section 1. The project authorized provides funds from interest earnings to pay debt issuance and other debt related costs and for transfers to the General Fund for debt service. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the project within the total budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenue is anticipated to complete this project. FY 2007/08 Amendment FY2008/09 Interest on Investments $1 890,000 $1,890,000 Total 0 $1,890,000 $1,890,000 Section 4. The following amount is appropriated for this project. FY 2007/08 Amendment FY2008/09 Transfer to Gen Fund $1,720 000 $1,720,000 Debt Related Costs 170,000 170,000 Total 0 $1,890 000 $1,890,000 Section 5. This ordinance supersedes any previous Capital Project Ordinances for this project. Section 6. This ordinance shall remain in effect. the Board of County Commissioners takes action to amend the ordinance or close the project ordinance upon completion of the project. Adopted this 16~' day of June 2009. ©6~ fJ • ~~a 9 -~~s" ~ d ~-~~ -~aGy ~-a.~ Commissioner Jacobs asked that the Register of Deeds be invited. Lucinda Munger said that she would be invited after the initial meeting. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the third page, Organization and Administration, and part of the discussion is going to be the pros and cons of different organizational structures. Lucinda Munger said that this will be part of the discussion process. PUBLIC COMMENT: Elizabeth Read, Executive Director of the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, said that they are in full support of exploring the future of the Heritage Center. She said that the agenda item abstract stated #hat the Heritage Center was not a core function of the library. She said that they believe that it is premature to remove the Heritage Center discussion out from under the umbrella of the library system before the work group meets. They are willing to discuss the pros and cons of all possible options. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adopt the proposed Charge and Composition of the Heritage Center Work Group with an understanding that this action does not obligate the County to assume ownership or financial support of such an enterprise. Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for thorough information and for inviting partners from Chapel Hill. Commissioner Nelson said that he hoped this group will be open to all ideas, a standalone center or part of the library. He thinks that this would get off the ground quicker as a standalone non-profit. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Capital Project Ordinance Amendments The Board considered approving amendments to capital project ordinances for projects which exceed the current project ordinance appropriations and to make other corrections to the capital project ordinances as described. Laura Blackmon made reference to the pink sheets which included a revised abstract (rose sheet) incorporating the CHCCS Capital Project Ordinance (light pink sheet -Attachment 2-d) and Lands Legacy Capital Project Ordinance (Attachment 2-dd- rose sheet). She said that Commissioner Gordon had asked that the Lands Legacy Capital Project Ordinance be added for consideration for the additional funding from the alternative financing that was approved in April. Financial Services Director Gary Humphreys said that the rose sheets revised abstract and Attachment 2-dd) are revised because there were some typographical errors and other minor changes. He said that the main purposes of the capital project ordinances, sections 1 and 2, are to cover projects that need additional money because they were over budget. Commissioner Hemminger said that there is still disagreement with the school system about some of these numbers. She said that it is time to close the accounts out. Gary Humphreys said that the numbers of the sales tax were discussed with the school board and there was agreement. Commissioner Gordon said that she wrote two memos that she wants to enter into the record. She said that she talked with Laura Blackmon about the possible motion that has to do with a substitution of alternative financing for certain projects. Because of that discussion, she changed the second bullet of the motion. The two memos are included below. The first memo is shown as submitted by Commissioner Gordon. The second memo shows what Commissioner Gordon wrote in regular type, with comments given by Gary Humphreys in italics. MEMORANDUM To: BOCC and Manager From: Alice Gordon Subject: 2001 Bonds and Item 6-2e Date: June 16, 2009 Copies to Frank Clifton, Greg Wilder, Donna Baker, Gary Humphreys, Donna Coffey, David Stancil, John Roberts I have two points to make about the 2001 bonds in this memorandum. They are related to item 6-2e, Capital Project Ordinance Amendments, on tonight's agenda. (1) To follow up on a question asked by Commissioner Yuhasz, I believe that the BOCC should make a formal statement acknowledging the substitution of alternative financing for approved 2001 bond financing. Perhaps something like the following would be appropriate: The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has authorized the substitution of alternative financing for certain projects approved by the voters in the 2001 bond referendum. However, if in the future it is more advantageous to issue the remaining $2.7 million debt as general obligation bonds, the County will have the ability to do that if the action is first approved by the BOCC. (2) I believe that if the voters approved a certain dollar amount for a project, we should keep our commitment to them and appropriate that amount to that project rather than some other project. In at least one capital project ordinance under 6-2e that does not seem to be the case. For Attachment 2j - Efland Cheeks Park: Sec. 3 -The amendment shows an additional $111,636 from the 2001 bonds, over and above the $250,000 already shown for 2001 bonds. However, the 2001 bond amount for this project was $250,000 (according to the original bond brochure). Therefore why are we allocating more 2001 bond funds, and which 2001 bond project may be therefore losing funds? For your information, I have attached the 2001 Bond brochure, which gives the amount and purpose for each of the projects. The SUMMARY of all the projects is given on the LAST PAGE of the attachment, on the stand alone information sheet. Attachment: 2001 Bond Brochure and a stand alone Information Sheet. The brochure was 11 x 17. The inside, which was one large page, has been cut in half to print. MEMORANDUM To: BOCC and Manager From: Alice Gordon Re: Questions and Comments from Alice Gordon Concerning Agenda Item 6-2e -Capital Project Ordinance Amendments Date: June 16, 2009 Here are the questions and comments I will be making with respect to item 6-2e. CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS A. Section 1 -School Capital Project Fund Projects Over Budget Att. 2b - Playground Protective Surfaces Sec. 1 states the revenue is from Schools PAYG, but Sec. 3 shows transfers from the General Fund. Please explain. Att. 2d -Chapel Hill Carrboro High School System Capital Project Ordinance Sec. 4 -There is no dollar amount entered for FY 2008-09 for Construction. Attachment 2d fixes this. B. Section 2 -County Capital Project Fund Projects Over Budget Att. 2g -Durham Technical Community College Sec. 1 -Were the grant funds that were not available CMAQ funds? If so, we need to make sure that they will not be available in the future. Even if the funds come to Orange County, it is too late, because it cannot be reimbursed. Sec. 6 -Until we are clear about which grant funds were not available, and whether they will still be forthcoming, we should NOT CLOSE the project. Att. 2j - Efland Cheeks Park (Already noted by me previously) Sec. 3 -The amendment shows an additional $111,636 from the 2001 bonds, over and above the $250,000 already shown for 2001 bonds. However, the 2001 bonds for this project were $250,000 (according to the original bond brochure). Therefore why are we allocating more 2001 bond funds, and which 2001 bond project is therefore losing funds? Gary Humphreys' answer was no and that this was interest money. Sec. 6 - As long as questions about the 2001 bond allocations remain, we should NOT CLOSE this project. Att. 2n - Sportsplex Sec. 1 states that funds are for the Justice Center additions, but this is the Sportsplex project. Sec. 4 -What are the "Swimming Pool Contrib"? Att. 2p -Greenways Sections 1, 3, and 4 are not clear to me with respect to the transfer of 2001 bond funds. Please explain the actions taken and the reasons for those actions. A capital project ordinance was adopted June 2007 authorizing these transfers. The funds are transferred to those projects for the purpose of paying for greenways in these parks. Att. 2u -Animal Services Facility Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 Why does this project use FY2008-09 and FY2009-10 dates when most of the other projects use the dates one year earlier, namely, FY2007-08 and FY2008- 09? Shouldn't this project also have the earlier dates, especially as we are making the two amendments in FY2008-09 to update the projects for this fiscal year? There is a capital project ordinance that was adopted on June 2, 2009 that showed the 2008-09 balance, and appropriated sales tax reimbursement, which will be received in 2009-10. Att. 2v -Justice Center Sec. 3 and Sec.4 -Same question about the dates as for the Animal Services Facility. There is a capital project ordinance that was adopted on June 2, 2009 that showed the 2008-09 balance, and appropriated sales tax reimbursement, which will be received in 2009-10. C. Section 3 -Appropriation of Funds from April Alternative Financing Att. 2z -Southern Community Park Sec. 3 -The revenue amounts stated here should be reconciled with amendments shown for the Greenways project, as appropriate. It is in agreement, and the amendment is to correct the source of funds so that it shows that it was 2001 bonds. Att. 2aa -Cedar Grove Park Sec. 3 -Shouldn't the $500,000 revenue "from other projects" be revenue from "2001 bonds? In previous capital project ordinances, it is shown that transfer from other projects in this ordinance eliminates that. The altemative financing replaces the 2001 bond funding that was to be used for this project. GENERAL COMMENTS A. Comments on capital ordinances in Sections 1, 2, 3 of the agenda materials 1. Correct any typos in the text of the ordinances. 2. Adopt a standard format for all capital project ordinances. 3. Make sure that for all capital project ordinances where it is applicable, the following sentence, or similar wording, is included in Section 1: "Alternate financing has been issued in place of 2001 bond funds." B. Comments on the proposed Capital Project Monitoring and Administrative Procedures Follow all of the procedures in Section 1 and apply them to the ordinances being considered, with particular attention to eliminating the use of the terms "Transfer to Other Project" and Transfer from Other Project" POSSIBLE MOTION 1. Approve the amended capital project ordinances, as revised by the Commissioners during their discussion. This means that it is the capital project ordinances themselves that are being approved, and not the text explaining the ordinances in other parts of the agenda materials. 2. Approve the following statement with respect to the relationship of the 2001 bonds and alternative financing: The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has authorized the substitution of alternative financing for certain projects approved by the voters in the 2001 bond referendum. In the future the remaining $2.7 million debt may be issued as general obligation bonds, or as alternative financing. 3. Provide to the BOCC in the fall, preferably in September 2009, a status report on the 2001 bond projects, including the amount of 2001 bond funds (or substituted alternative financing) that was spent on each project. 4. Adopt the "Capital Project Monitoring and Administrative Procedures" in principle and provide the two school systems with an opportunity to comment. TWO ADDITIONAL POINTS Commissioner Gordon made two additional points about the capital project ordinances. A. The Lands Legacy capital project ordinance was added to the agenda. Commissioner Gordon noted that the Lands Legacy capital project ordinance was added to the agenda for this item, and therefore that ordinance should be included in the ones that are approved. See the dark pink sheet that had the revised agenda item along with the ordinance. B. Gary Humphreys provided answers to questions in the second memo (6-2e) Commissioner Gordon also noted-that the Commissioners received an email from Gary Humphreys giving answers to questions in her second memo, and she read some of the answers into the record. Commissioner Jacobs said that at the meeting in May he raised a question about the School Capital Reserve Fund, which Gary Humphreys was not clear about -what it was, where the money came from, and what its original purpose had been. Gary Humphreys said it has been budgeted for construction and a lot of other different purposes in the past. Some of it was transferred back to the general fund. Commissioner Jacobs asked for staff to go through and find when the fund was started and history and how it was used and if it is necessary in 2009- 10. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to: 1. Approve the amended capital project ordinances, as revised by the Commissioners during their discussion. This means that it is the capital project ordinances themselves that are being approved, and not the text explaining the ordinances in other parts of the agenda materials. 2. Approve the following statement with respect to the relationship of the 2001 bonds and alternative financing: The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has authorized the substitution of alternative financing for certain projects approved by the voters in the 2001 bond referendum. In the future the remaining $2.7 million debt may be issued as general obligation bonds, or as alternative financing. 3. Provide to the BOCC in the fall, preferably in September 2009, a status report on the 2001 bond projects, including the amount of 2001 bond funds (or substituted alternative financing) that was spent on each project. 4. Adopt the "Capital Project Monitoring and Administrative Procedures" in principle and provide the two school systems with an opportunity to comment. 5. Direct staff to make a report on the School Capital Reserve Fund, including a definition of what it is and the history of its use. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Pelissier said that some of the issues raised by Commissioner Gordon show that the Board needs to get the history of ordinances in the future so that they can be tracked. Laura Blackmon said that the Interim Manager has recommended that ordinances and resolutions be numbered for future tracking purposes. 7. Reports: NONE 8. Board Comments Commissioner Jacobs made reference to his memorandum regarding presentation at the NCACC Convention. He is requesting Board support for an effort to work with staff to do a presentation on the Orange County sustainability Efforts at the NCACC Convention. TO: Orange County Board of Commissioners FROM: Barry Jacobs RE: Presentation at NCACC Convention I request Board support for an effort to share information about Orange County's sustainability efforts at August's NCACC convention. We have been invited to make a presentation that encourages others to use innovative approaches to promoting sustainability. The subject matter tentatively suggested would include practices used in construction of new buildings, including schools; our Environmental Responsibility goals; and the County's C&D recycling ordinance and electronics recycling. This would require participation by staff members from Purchasing (Asset Management), ERCD, Solid Waste, and perhaps the Manager's Office, at least to provide information and guidance and perhaps to participate in the presentation. I will gladly take responsibility for organizing this effort. The BOCC Chair and Interim Manager will be kept informed as discussions proceed. I trust that comment from BOCC members would be solicited once an initial approach was chosen. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the above process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs congratulated Jon Wilner, who just stepped down as ArtsCenter Director. He suggested doing a resolution this summer in appreciation because he has been an advocate for the arts in Orange County. Commissioner Pelissier said that at the HSAC's last two meetings, they discussed their role and she shared with them that one of the Board's priorities was to review the functions of all advisory boards. She said that some of the members wanted to know if they should wait for the Board of Commissioners' direction about the role. .~ -/~5 i~6/~~/ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 19, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT: Capital Project Ordinance Amendments DEPARTMENT: Financial Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y!N) No ATTACHMENT(S): School Capital Projects Fund Detail Project Ordinances INFORMATION CONTACT: Name, Phone Number Gary Humphreys (919) 245-2453 Donna Coffey (919) 245-2151 PURPOSE: To approve amended capital project ordinances appropriating additional funds for School Capital Projects which are over budget and making various corrections to County Capital Project ordinances. BACKGROUND: At their February 3, 2009 meeting the Board of County Commissioners approved the County Manager's two year plan to address additional funding needs of the School and County Capital Project Funds. Approval of these amended capital project ordinances will make the necessary corrections for this FY 2008-09. A similar action will be presented for Board action in FY 2009-10. 1) Projects Over budget -The following project ordinances address the capital projects in the School Capital Project Fund where expenditures have exceeded the approved budget. See Attachment 1 for detailed information about the four projects listed below. With the exception of the transfer from School Capital Reserve Fund in Project 1, the revenue for each of the projects listed below was allocated to cover expenditures in prior fiscal years but the funds were not appropriated. Capital Project Ordinance Revenue Amount Expenditures Amount Orance County Schools 1 Pathwa s Elements 1997 Bonds ; 115,513 Construction ; 33,661 " State Bonds (; 37,409) " Approp.Fund Bal (; 254,530) " Tr From School Ca ital Reserve Fd ; 210,087 2 Playground Protective Surfaces Transfer from Gen Fd 13,974 Surfacin g ; 13,974 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools 3 Smith Middle Sch Cam us School Impact Fees ; 395,474 Construction ; 395,474 4 Indoor Air Quali 2001 Bond Funds ;1,215,111 ;1,215,111 Fund Total ;1,658,220 ;1,658,220 2 2) Correction of Funding Source -The County Capital Project Fund project ordinances listed below correct the method used to move funds from one project to another. In past years funds have been moved from one project to another by intrafund transfers. This is not "best practice" in the accounting industry and should not be done for the following reasons: 1) Transfers are only to be used for budgeted movements between funds, not for budgeted movements within the same fund. The use of transfers within the same fund will result in an inflated figure for both the budgeted amount of money and the actual amount of money in the fund. 2) The use of transfers between projects can obscure the actual source of funds being used to pay for any one project, thus making it difficult to track and properly account for the use of restricted fund sources such as debt financing and grants. The best practice is to reduce the funding source of the project from which funds are being moved. Conversely the project receiving additional funding will show an increase in its fund source. In the chart below, projects with the same number followed by a letter indicate those projects in which funds were first reduced (project "A") and then increased (project "B"), thus correcting the inappropriate "transfer" between projects. The current Project Ordinance budgets for Homestead Aquatics and Southern Park are also out of balance by offsetting amounts. Project ordinances 8A and 8D correct those balances. The Twin Creeks (Moniese Nomp) Park Project Ordinance 6C, Lands Legacy Project Ordinance 8B and Northem Human Service Center (now Cedar Grove) Park Ordinance 8C are being amended to align revenues with expenditures by including the remaining funding from the April 2009 Alternative Financing and future financing. In addition, Central Recreation Repairs Ordinance 5A is being reduced by $51,060 to provide funding needed to cover over expended budgets in the Greenways Development project and Homestead Community Center project. Capital Project Ordinance Account (r) revenue (e) expense Amount debit Account (r) revenue (e) expense Amount credit 5A Central Recreation Re airs r) 2/3rds Bonds $111,060 (e) Transfer to other proj $60,000 " " (e) Construction $51,060 5B Homestead Communi Ctr (r) Transfer from other proj $60,000 (r) 2/3rds Bonds ;77,634 " " l,~ (e) Sewer Connection $17,634 sA Soccer Su erfund (r) 2001 Bonds $2,000,000 (e) Transfer to other proj $2,000,000 sB West Ten Soccer Com lex (r) Transfer from other proj $1,350,000 (r) 2001 Bonds $1,350,000 6C Twin Creeks Park (rj Transfer from other proj $650,000 (r) Alternative Financing $1,000,000 " " {rj 2001 Bonds $350,000 7 Greenwa s Develo ment (r) 2001 Bonds $575,000 (e) Trensfer to other proj $1,000,000 (r) Transfer from other proj $425,000 (r) 2/3rds Bonds $33 426 " " (e) Construction $33 426 8A Homestead A uatics (e) Contribution to Ch Hill $2,809,508 (e) Transfer to other proj $3,175,000 u ,c {r) 2001 Bonds $500,000 (r) Alternative Financing $500,000 8B Lands Le aC (r Transfer from other proj $1,750,000 (r) 2001 Bonds $1,635,364 " " (e) Land 8 Associated Fees $2,825,300 (e) Millhouse Rd Property $300 " (e) Blackwood Property $1,268,116 (e) Other $1,408,897 ~~ « (e) Lewis Heartleaf Presve $1,145 (r) Alternative Financing $2,800,000 8C Northem Human Svc Ctr Park r Transfer from other $500,000 (r) Alternative Financing $500,000 8D Southern Park (r) Trensfer from other proj $925,000 ((r) 2001 Bonds $925,000 (e) Contribution to Ch Hill $365,492 9 Bolin Creek Greenwa (r) Transfer from other proj $75,000 ((r) 2001 Bonds $75,000 Fund Total $16,591,681 $16,591,681 3 3) Project Budgets Out of Balance -The County Capital Project Fund project ordinances listed below are out of balance, meaning the budgeted revenue for the project does not equal the budgeted expenditure. In addition, the Capital Project Fund budget as a whole is $1,000 out of balance. Project Ordinance 11A wilt balance both the projects and the fund. Project Ordinance 10A: Equipment and Vehicles closes old activity prior to the current fiscal year. Acquisition of vehicles is now being financed on a pay as you go basis in the General Fund. Project Ordinance106: Conservation Easements also realigns line item budgets within the Ordinance to cover expenditures in those line items. Project Ordinance 11A: Debt Issuance Costs and Transfers appropriates revenue from interest earning funds to cover past expenditures. It also provides additional funding for future expenditures related to debt issuance costs and transfers to the General Fund for debt service. There have been no appropriations in this project prior to now. I ~~ v~ Capital Project Ordinance Account (r) revenue (e) expense Amount debit Account (r) revenue (e) expense Amount credit 10A E ui ment and Vehicles (r) NC DOT Funds E634,800.27 (e)Animal Control Veh $76,862.00 " °' (r) USDOJ Funds 538,574.00 (e)Inform Tech Vehicles $22,600.00 " ~° (r) Equipment Financing $3,415,031.00 a Bld & Grnds Veh $163,425.00 °' " (r) From General Fund 5615,927.45 a Motor Pool Vehicles $302 458.00 '~ " (r) From other Project 5559,000.00 (e)Sanitation Equipment $168 524.00 ~< (e)Sanitation Vehicles $391,775.00 (e)Trans to General Fnd $100,000.00 « ~~ (e) Unallocated $73,114.00 " " (e) Social Services Veh $16 275.00 « " (e) Health Admin Veh $77,135.00 « (e) Dental Health Equip $82,506.00 « (e)Env Health Equip $18,000.00 " (e) Personal Hlth Equip $9,037.00 « , (e) OrangePubTransVeh $276 874.31 « (e)Recreation&Pks Eqp $87,389.00 ~^ (e) RecreationSPks Veh $137,564.00 « « (e)Little River Park Eqp $32,794.00 « " (e) Little River Park Veh $32,000.00 ~^ (e) ERCD Vehicles $46 828.00 « " (e)Planning Vehicles $56,000.00 « <~ (e)Sheriff Equipment $164,162.00 « ~~ (e) Sheriff Vehicles 51,319,934.50 « <~ (e)Emerg Mgt Equip $291,468.87 ~• ~~ (e) Emerg Mgt Vehicles 51,393,626.07 10B Conservation Easements (r) From other project $77,019 a Unallocated $86,813 " e Tate Easement $1,050 °` a Sh Easement $1,000 " e Peele Easement 384,763 11A Debt Issuance Costsltransfers {e) Trans to Gen Fun $2,200,000 (r) Interest on invest $2,499,000 " " e Debt Related Costs 5300 000 .< <~ Fund Total 57,927164.75 57,926,164.75 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of the recommended action is discussed in the background. RECOMMENDATION(S~: The County Manager recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve these capital project ordinances for FY 2008-09. 22 Debt Issuance Costs and Transfers Capital Project Ordinance Be it ordained by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following capital project ordinance is hereby adopted. Section 1. The project authorized provides funds from interest earnings to pay debt issuance and other debt related costs and for transfers to the General Fund for debt service. Section 2. The officers of the County are hereby directed to proceed with the project within the total .budget contained herein. Section 3. The following revenue is anticipated to complete this project. FY 2007/08 Amendment FY2008109 Interest on Investments ;1 000 ;2 499 000 ;2 500 000 Total ;1,000 ;2,499,000 ;2 500 000 Section 4. The following amount is appropriated for this project. FY 2007108 Amendment FY2008/09 Transfer to Gen Fund ;2,200,000 ;2,200 000 Debt Related Costs 300 000 300 000 Total 0 ;2,500,000 ;2,500 000 Section 5. This ordinance supersedes any previous Capital Project Ordinances for this project. Section 6. This ordinance shall remain in effect the Board of County Commissioners takes action to amend the ordinance or close the project ordinance upon completion of the project. Adopted this 19~' day of May 2009. ~9-a9 ~c Laura Blackmon made reference to the list of tiers for monthly bills. This is a four-year program. She said that the proposal for the Board is to monitor the first and second year to see the impact on the neighborhoods and then reevaluate where they are. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is capacity in these funds for additional people. Kevin Lindley said that the Town of Hillsborough has also agreed to let Efland customers use part of the water assistance fund. Commissioner Yuhasz asked that notice of these programs go out with the shut-off notice. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to implement an information and referral process to alert all Efland Sewer customers on how to access Emergency Assistance programs administered by both Social Services and OCIM, including that funding by the Town, to help eligible households pay their utility bills and monitor and assess the demand for Emergency Assistance caused by increased sewer rates during the first year (FY 2009-10) and use those findings to formulate recommendations to the Board about future levels of assistance that may be necessary. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Capital Project Ordinances Amendments The Board considered approving amended capital project ordinances appropriating additional funds for School Capital Projects which are over budget and making various corrections to County Capital Project ordinances. Laura Blackmon said that last fall the staff brought forward some issues with the School Capital Projects and the County Capital Projects. Finance has been itemizing the differences that resulted in the staff asking for some fund balance in order to set this right. Financial Services Director Gary Humphreys said that these are not all of the amendments the Board of County Commissioners will see and the items have been organized in groups. The first group is for the schools. He said that with the exception of the one on Pathways Elementary, all of the funds were allocated to the projects but not reflected necessarily in the budget. He said that the budget amounts are not significantly out of line with what the schools show as their budgets. Commissioner Hemminger verified that this had no negative impact on the schools and is a matter of cleaning up the books. Discussion ensued about why this is being done. Gary Humphreys said that this involves eliminating the existing revenue source and replacing it with the appropriate revenue source. Commissioner Gordon said that you really cannot tell what has happened by reading this document. She said that she would like to see the overall picture and complete project ordinances. She is concerned about this because project ordinances are what implement projects. She also wants to make sure that all stakeholders, such as the schools, department directors, etc., are involved in reviewing these changes. Laura Blackmon said that the project ordinances should list all of the revenues, etc., and the Board should have all of the information it needs. Laura Blackmon said that bond money should be spent right away and not nine years later and Commissioner Gordon agreed. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to see the original project ordinances because it would make a lot more sense to him. He asked that the staff bring a random sample of these. Chair Foushee said that it would be important for the public to know what measures have been put in place to make sure this does not happen again. Gary Humphreys said that it would be a matter of reviewing these on a constant basis. Laura Blackmon pointed out that there was a lot of confusion during the conversion to MUNIS. The project ordinances should be closed out when the projects are completed, and this has not been happening in a timely manner. Commissioner Jacobs asked what percentage of the 2001 bond money had not been spent. Gary Humphreys said that the only thing left is what was authorized for the alternative financing which was substituted for the bond money. More than 90% of it has been spent. The majority of what is left is in Lands Legacy and Parks and Recreation. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is not in favor of spending bond money just for the sake of saying that it was spent. Most of it has been committed. He is tired of this conversation. Also, regarding the $600,000 for the Soccer Superfund, the Board has asked the Manager to meet with Chapel Hill and Carrboro and figure out a plan for spending that money. Laura Blackmon said that she could report back on this in June. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the School Capital Reserve Fund and said that the reason it was spent was because Governor Easley took more than $2 million from the County. during the budget process and there was money that could be .reassigned. He said that if this was replenished, he does not think that the Board of County Commissioners was aware of it, and if it is something else, he would like to know what it is. Also, the Board appropriated money from the Commissioners' Contingency toward paying for a position earlier, and he asked for the minutes from last year's budget, and then $25,000 was put in the Commissioners' Contingency for the Attorney search. This money should not have been in the Commissioners' Contingency, yet there was still $40,000 in the Commissioners' Contingency, which was only $40,000 to begin with. He said that something is not tracking. Chair Foushee said that it would seem that an appropriate motion would be to approve the capital project ordinance amendments that are included in the packet: - Pathways Elementary -Orange County Schools Capital Project Ordinance' - Playground Protective Services - OCS Capital Project Ordinance - Smith Middle School Campus -CHCCS Capital Project Ordinance - Indoor Air Quality -CHCCS Capital Project Ordinance - Central Recreation Repairs -Capital Project Ordinance - Homestead Community Center Capital Project Ordinance - Soccer Superfund Capital Project Ordinance - West Ten Soccer Complex Capital Project Ordinance - Twin Creeks Park Capital Project Ordinance - Greenways Development Capital Project Ordinance - Homestead Aquatic Center Capital Project Ordinance - Lands Legacy Capital Project Ordinance - Northern Human Services Center Park Capital Project Ordinance - Southern Community Park Capital Project Ordinance - Bolin Creek Greenway Capital Project Ordinance - Equipment and Vehicles Capital Project Ordinance - Conservation Easements Capital Project Ordinance - Debt Issuance Costs/Transfers Capital Project Ordinance A motion as made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Chair Foushee to accept the ordinance amendments as stated above as long as there is no direct cost back to the General Fund or Fund Balance. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he will vote for this, but he would still like to see some samples of what these look like after adopted. The Board agreed. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to urge the Board to vote against this since it is not just a clean up of the accounts and the Board should get a complete explanation. VOTE: Ayes, 3; Nays, 3(Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Pelissier, and Commissioner Jacobs) MOTION FAILED Laura Blackmon said that the staff would bring it back and include samples in the next agenda. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the bonds and said that he has asked for several years for information. The voters were promised in 2001 that the bonds would result in no more than aseven-cent property tax increase. He has asked for this repeatedly and the Board has never gotten it. d. Process for Evaluating Town Site Suggested For Transfer Station The Board considered a possible solid waste transfer station location on Millhouse Road as suggested by the Town of Chapel Hill at the Board of County Commissioners work session on May 14, 2009 and reviewed the process in relation to on-going investigation of Site 056. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that at the May 14, 2009 meeting, Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy brought up a site on Millhouse Road as a possible site for a transfer station. It was not a formal offer, but on the table for discussion. He said that the purpose of this item was for the Board to give direction to the staff about this site. It is his understanding that if the Board chooses to proceed to evaluate this site; it would be done on a parallel track with the Howell property. Information could be brought back by June 16th. However, it is likely that the wetlands recommendation on the Howell site would not be ready for the June 16th meeting. Staff would like to bring this back at the August 18th meeting. The Manager's recommendation is that the Board: -Direct staff to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the Town site and report findings at the June 16th BOCC meeting; -Confirm staff will continue the COE wetlands determination of Site 056 and to return at the August 18th BOCC meeting with the results, including the Planning Department decision on the enhanced environmental assessment of the site; and -Consider a final decision on the location of the transfer station at the August 18th BOCC meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: Charles Viles, Vice President of the Board of Directors of Emerson Waldorf School, read a letter. "Dear Board of County Commissioners, As Vice President of the Emerson Waldorf School, I am writing to you today to express our deep concern regarding recent developments in the site selection process for the proposed Waste Transfer Station. Through media reports and communications with our neighbors, we have learned that a 32-acre site immediately adjacent to our school is under some level of discussion. Now in our 25th year, Emerson is the academic home for 265 students from pre-k through High School, ages 3 to 18. The vast majority of these children reside in Orange County, Carrboro, or Chapel Hill. Our core and overriding mission is the education of children using a curriculum and educational philosophy that is grounded equally in academics, art,