Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2009-125 - New Hope Creek Preserve Capital Project Ordinanceo,Q~O - aooQ _~~,, /4~pvr~ve d G /G _~~ S (n - Z-G 22 Attachment 20 New Hope Creek Preserve 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 for the preservation of New Hope Creek. 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 Trian le Land Conservanc $34,459 $34,459 NC EEP Grant $130,000 130,000 Historic Preservation Grant 9,000 9,000 From Other Pro ects 143,965 143,965 Total $282,965 $34,459 $317,424 Section 4. The following amount is appropriated for this project. FY 2007/08 Amendment FY2008/09 Erwin Trace $66,667 $6,167 $72,834 Hollow Rock Trailhead 77,000 77,000 Trin Pro 130,298 130,298 Professional Services 9,000 8,895 17 895 Penn Pro a 19,397 19,397 Total $282,965 $34,459 $317,424 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. ~~~ -- ~o~ - T o2 5 A pP.~~ ~ d ~ -,G .~ 9 ~ -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 that 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 Proiect 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. to 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 OfFce, 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. 1 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.