Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 10-06-2009 - Information
INFORMATION ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: September 29, 2009 TO: Board of County Commissioners Interim County Manager, Frank UV. Clifton FROM: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager Frank Montes de Oca, Director, Emergency Services Pam Jones, Director, Assets Management and Purchasing RE: Fire/Rescue/EMS Phase One Assessment -Update On September 24, 2009 the County suspended its RFP process for the Fire/Rescue -Phase One Assessment (RFP 5150). We are pushing the "re-start" button and striving to avenge ourselves of past mistakes and miscommunications. The RFP Review Committee has been duly constituted and asked to join County staff in the spirit of full disclosure, forgiveness, and moving on together. We have proposed the Committee meet face to face on Thursday, October Stn (a7 7:00 PM in the 15t floor conference room of Emergency Services in the Meadowlands/Hillsborough. Our purpose is to begin a joint review of the existing RFP for Phase One Assessment, RFP Addendum #1 and #2, additional questions Purchasing has been collecting from prospective bidders, and any questions/concerns any member of the Review Committee may have. The plan is to bring forth any additional changes/clarifications to the existing RFP - and to present any changes, modifications, or clarifications (most probably incorporated into Addendum #3) to the Board of County Commissioners for final review and authorization prior to release. At that point, the RFP process would be "unsuspended", bidders would respond according to a new due date and the Review Committee would reconvene, review the competing responses to the RFP, and make its recommendation on a contract award to the BOCC. The members of the Review Committee are: BOCC Representatives: Barry Jacobs Steve Yuhasz Fire/Rescue/EMS Members: 2 1) Travis Crabtree, Carrboro FD 2) Linwood Futurelle -Orange Grove FD 3) Wayne Cheek -Orange Rural FD 4) Fred Stipe -South Orange Rescue Squad 5) Brian Matthews - OC Rescue Squad (invited) Alternates: 1) Jeff Cabe -Orange Rural (alternate) 2) Kevin Brooks - Efland FD (alternate) 3) Dan Jones -Chapel Hill FD (alternate) 4) Syd Alexander -South Orange RS (alternate) 5) TBD - OC Rescue Squad (alternate) jAlternates are welcome to attend all meetings -but are especially need to be present when the primary representative is unavailable to attend in order to ensure full participation.) Orange County Officials/Staff: 6) Lindy Pendergrass - OC Sheriff 7) Frank Montes de Oca - OC Emergency Services 8) Pam Jones - OC Asset Management and Purchasing 9) David Cannell -Asset Management and Purchasing 10)Gwen Harvey -Assistant County Manager The March 3, 2009 BOCC Agenda item is attached for review and reference. At present, the Review Committee has no set deadlines for returning to the BOCC. We intend to take the time necessary to achieve collaboration and consensus. Ideally, a contract would be awarded and Phase One results could be considered within the context of the FY10-11 budget process. All BOCC members are encouraged to share their thoughts and comments on the existing RFP with staff members on the Review Committee. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns going forward. Attachment 1) BOCC Agenda Item (March 3, 2009) 2 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 3,.2009 Action Agenda Item No. ~~_ SUBJECT: Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services System in Orange County DEPARTMENT: Emergency Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACIiMENT(S): Background Memo to the BOCG and County Manager INFORMATION CONTACT: F. Rojas Monies de Oca, Jr. Emergency Services, 245-6100 Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager, 245-2307 Pam Jones, Purchasing/Gentral Services, 245-2650 PURPOSE: . To present a strategy for re=engaging afire/rescue study and request BOCC authorization for an informal solicitation of competitive proposals from qualified organizations to conduct Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Service System in Orange County. 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 far 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 Chiefs Council participated in a free and open discussion of what they felt a new fire/rescue study could encompass as wel! 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. 4 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 6000 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 fo coalesce around the following sef of commitmenfs: ® 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 organiza#ion 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. 2 5 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 fen 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 Twa may take approximately 3- 6months 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 fre/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 PurchasinglCentral 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. 3 6 4 The steering committee will recommend a contract award to the BOCC for approval. If the BOCC authorizes the proposed strategy; the steering committee could tie 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 Caunty advertises nationally for private, for- proft 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 fag 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 technicaUresearch organizations in the fire/rescue profession to submit competitive proposals to perform Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services System in Orange County 4 7 Memorandum TO: Board of County Commissioners Laura Blackmon, County Manager FROM: Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager F. Rojas Montes de Oca, Director, Emergency Services RE: Re-Engaging "The Sage Report" -Additional Background for .. the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) DATE: February 25, 2009 Fire protection in the unincorporated areas of Orange County_ is provided in twelve tax supported fire districts. Coordination of these services is provided by Orange County Emergency Services. In most districts fire services are provided under contract with various unincorporated volunteer fire departments. In two cases service is provided to district residents under agreements with municipal fire departments. In addition to fire protection many of these departments provide first responder and early defibrillation to medical emergencies within their district. Due to the passage of time and degree of controversy attached to the most recent iteration of a fire/rescue study, we thought it helpful to convey additional background and perhaps greater context as the BOCC considers this item again on March 3. Our close review of previous BOCC agenda materials and minutes (dating back to FY04-05) permit us to provide the following chronology of events and conclusions we hope will assist the BOCC in its decision-making. IVlay 2005 BOCC received a report from Emergency Management Director on "Emergency Fire and Rescue Services" -the current structure of fire and rescue services; challenge and opportunities; areas for exploration regarding enhanced County support; and opportunities for increased efficiencies. (Attachment A is a copy of the work session agenda item,. attachments, and minutes.) The report stated: "A strategic plan could be developed to identify how the increased demand far services will be met.in the coming years. Any strategic plan should be developed through a coordinated effort from the volunteer fire departments and county representatives, but moderated through an independent agent that has experience and knowledge in transitions of public safety systems. The plan should address where we have been, where we are and where we 8~ want to go, and should complement the county's comprehensive planning' : (p 5) June 2005 BOCC adopted the FY06-07 budget that included an appropriation of $25,000 to initiate the fire and rescue service study. At the time, it was difficult to estimate accurately the true cost, but Emergency Management had experience with a similar study conducted in New Hanover County in the amount of $25,000, and if necessary, County management would recommend additional funding in FY06- 07 if the amount were found to be inadequate. (Attachment B is a copy of the IrAemorandum to the BOCC re: Suggested Approach to Initiating Fire/Rescue Service Study from the budget work session.) November 2005 . BOCC reviewed and approved a scope of service for a Fire, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and Rescue Assessment Plan for Orange County. The scope of service included evaluation of existing and planned fire stations,. EMS facilities, rescue squads; location and adequacy of facilities, including volunteers and equipment,; identification of strategies for improving efficiencies, reducing costs, and overall operational issues in the volunteer fire departrnents (i.e., fire insurance ratings, paperwork, administration), and recommendation of a plan uto meet the needs of the County and its citizens giving consideration to overall cost benefits and best practices". . January 2006 BOCC awarded a contract to The Sage Group in the amount of $25,000. Nlay 2006 The Manager's Recommended Budget for FY06-07 included Reserve Funding in the amount of $100,000 for a Fire and Rescue Study Outcome. June 2006 The Sage Group provided an assessment list of preliminary recommendations to the BOCC in early June 2006. These recommendations were found tacking, falling short of expectations in depth and timing - a sentiment shared by the BOCC, County management, Emergency Services, and Fire Chiefs Council. The adopted budget for FY06-07 included the Reserve Funding in the amount of $100,000. August 2006 The Sage Group submitted a revised working draft report to the County in mid- August 2006. December 2006 - January 2007 The Sage Group submitted a final working draft to the new County Manager in mid-December 2006. The document was circulated among stakeholders for 2 9 critique and comment. Again, problems were identified in methodology and findings, typified by the response from Chief Travis Crabtree, Town of Carrboro. (Attachment C is an a-mail from Chief Crabtree on the Fire Rescue Study.) Apri12007 County management, .after much consideration of the revised working draft and careful consultation with Legal and Emergency Services, elected to end the engagement of The Sage Group. September 2007 County management contracted with the UNC School of Government (SOG, Dr. Maureen Bemer) to prepare a primer on fire/rescue service 'responsibilities for NC counties and a cross-reference between The Sage Group contract award/scope of services and the work product actually received by the County. The SOG technical analysis several items that warranted further work, including methods of financing recommended improvements and service demand and current level of response. November 2007 The SOG technical analysis was circulated among stakeholders. County staff attended the Fire' Chiefs Council November meeting to provide an update and receive comments and concerns. about the work to, date. At a work session on November 19, the SOG made its presentation to the BOCC. Chief Andy Gates, Caldwell Fire Department, provided their summary response to County staff in an e-mail in advance of the work session. (Attachment D is a copy of Chief Gate's e-mail.) At the work sessian the BOCC provided the following guidance and direction far continuing and/or renewing a study: ® Ensure that the southern part of Orange County serviced by the North Chatham Fire Department was addressed ® Provide sufficient critical data and analysis for recommendations and discussion ® Relate how South Orange Fire District fits into overall study; Address equally with North Chatham ® Correct misinformation and gaps ® Provide recommendations for a comprehensive plan far fire services Address how to move forward with Fire Chiefs Council d Address six-mite service district . Prioritize goals ® Do a strategic plan The understanding, supported by the Fire Chief s Council, was the County would . wait until the next Emergency Services Director was in place before proceeding 3 10 with next steps to advance a study. The new Director began work on April 21, 2008. - iVtay 2008 During budget discussions with the new Emergency Services Director for FY08- 09, the BOCC reaffirmed interest and commitment to a study reflective of the rural fire department needs and staffing requirements for the office of Fire Marshall. • The FY08-09 budget makes available funding in the amount of $50,000 for a new study. October 2008 The Emergency Services Director, in response to a request at a work session on September 9, 2008, provided the BOCC a proposed timeline for re-entering a Fire Rescue Study. November 2008 - . County staff facilitated a Fire Chiefs Council discussion of re-entering a Fire Rescue Study, tabulated collective concerns, and received appointments to a "steering committee" for moving ahead. (Attachment E is a summary of the discussion point from the Council meeting.] December 2008 BOCC received a report regarding the recommended 2009-19 County CIP on December 1, 2008. One of the decision points carried forward to December 11, 2008 was "whether to appropriate $1.2 million in Emergency Service Reserve for Emergency Services needs or to retain monies in reserve pending outcome of upcoming Fire and Rescue Study." The BOCC has not yet taken action on the proposed 10 year CIP. The. $1.2 million represents unrestricted E-911 funds that can be' used for any purpose. Emergency Services, undergoing reorganization and ~ modernization under the new Director, has immediate need for additional capital equipment and facility improvements as the chief coordinating department in the County, exclusive of system improvements certain to be identified iri a new Fire Rescue. study. (Attachment F is a copy of the proposed plan for utilizing the Emergency Services Reserve.) March 2009 BOCC agenda far March 3 includes recommendation to proceed with Phase One: Assessment of the Fire/Rescue Services System Study in Orange County under an informal solicitation for professional technical services. The phased approach proposed and the process for selecting aresearch-based technical organization to conduct the assessment has been reviewed and vetted by the chosen representatives of the Fire Chiefs Council. 4 11 The phased approach encompasses the following directives in response to concerns expressed by the BOCG and the Fire Chiefs Council. • Initiate a strategic plan • Involve critical stakeholders • Include Northern Chatham and Southern Orange • Employ recognized industry standards • Factor six-mile districts • Address fire insurance ratings • ~ Examine efficiencies and services enhancements • Calculate long term sustainability and district financing . • Strengthen support and connections; i.e., fire inspections and prevention. County management believes the work products resulting from Phases One, Two, and Three will allow the BOCC to become better informed and enable more equitable decisions about the future size, scope, and structure of the fire and rescue service system in Orange County and rarriificationsfnr fire district taxes. Emergency Services sees the conduct and coordination of the Phase One Assessment as instrumental and important to present efforts at realigning and modernizing the Department to better serve and secure the public safety. 5 ~~ ~ APP t~~~~:si~ si~~ao5 MI15fUTIES` Q~A~VGE~~~CQIJN'i'~f'~~.~~t3:{~E• C~MNI.IS~SIt3NEt~S; a~'o~SF~s~~> ~, _ • l~a~ Z;~,.20Q5 5130; p.m~•; Thd. ~t3raige:Cburityt<l3~a~d bfCoii'iii~issi~tners m~.t=far a_rk'~~ssioii i9n .1111ond'ayP 11t1a'y'23~, 200b:. at.53a~ p.m~. at.the. Government Serr~ices_Center in 1-(illsbigTougha.Ngrlli: Catalina: .CCiUNTYCt311AM1SS1CiNERS PRE~SEN7:.Chair Moses Careyand Commissioners Valerie P::~ts~~h~~;:A1ie~ IUD. Gordon; ~~aplieri~H. Halk~p~i~•end~Berry..lac~il~ CCUNTIV'".CaMMISrS]tJ:I~ERS •ABSENT3 ~C17-UN'f`Y~A'fTCJRl~IE'YS .PRE~.E~NT: ~Gi~of Glecl~tl aricl Si~c~i• Bgihanian'. iCOUNTY'ST~;P.F PRESEtVT:Ciiunty'[4Jlariag~r`Jofiri"IUI: Link;•Jr.~; Assista~rit:C.odiity' Manager F~ac! ~'i~s~r.. and Gl.,erl~to,fi~e Bbarcl LSanna; ~aker~ Gill ~#.1?e~r sfaff mei~iters;,~rll,pe: ir7e'r~ti~ed ~rppropl'iately'~~aelow~: . 1'. Va~liiti.teecF~te aQd Rirs~ctae: S.eiy'iice:tssiies :John Linksaid ttiatabouf ~~ years~aga; ~tJrange County. ~rent;through arrassessment ~roce~s:)i~{cng'.~f #tie `voles `ci~5~ ~o$po:~$itiliEi~~ of ;~15~ft[e ~I~tiar~rri:~.tts;. r~scrl~ ~~jtlad; end, EN1S.: 1Tji ~o~iratjl' Fi~'s.:coiitinu~ #o :g~o~vu :aifcl tlid rescue squad's. ~work;3niell ancifh EMS grid: o~tiSe depar.Ements; T~e~ Board of::iroun~:Cor~nlniss~one~s sw,gga~ted":examining this aga~n~ince• ~liitg~ haite c~anged'.~ritli fio~fu, the'`rlep~rtrrieiifs o~3erute~ ~~r'~~FUfarly with .r.'egarc~ ~ta the ciec~ease~ iri:"v'sliziite.~~: Ne•saia~tfia't.todajr,,~#Ei'e~`sfaff:tia~l a prodaetiv~:~disciass~on.irvith:one bfthe=vblunt~er~ #ire:~#epar~ments;;rQ~ardin~.'fhe i~~ne~ ~hiat~they, face. The isst~~s are ;~$ follpw5 m loo#;encsugti ~oluriteers ^ PoSS:ll3lit~;b;F (iirih~ a~afr'- paid ~Tid :~r~l~ri~~ers ~a cover''~~'/.~' .. '~ f€:;;fi'aff~is'Fiired, then`•tfie%; must tie:tilsiie`fits .~ Egra~ly ~etvuee~.valunteer'.~iire' departments. and~~nuncipaf~~a de.partmenfis• ^ Hpv~ i~o ~be'•frugal:vvit~ .~.i$~~c.~.t~. rev~Hue iNFisri;operal:~c5ri~",si~1~`;~oe~, up iNi~f~i tfi~ ctis~~of vel•iicles3 •• ..: _ .. Ire"the ~arig.ter`rfi,. his p:eiljctiori i~.t)jat fh~re~ w:il~ 1~~, e~uii~ is.'~ue,~:~.ai~ou~' p~~';en.:: . equipmenE~: R~,d:ti~isSQj; m"acl~= refiereric~ tq'the. bacicgnauiricl, c1:t~curiierts;,W~iiFlil`iriclu~je; `^ ri`ietri,a ~roiri Jack Ball ^ f~awer~'oin~:slide~ ~ hard copy°='ineludes:som~ atthe~ ~~tcal~assi~tance;:ayaiiabi~~ta ~valurafeer~re, department:. ^ revi~w'that.staff ,did. on resctie-5eivice: pi-ovisioris atidUl;1 Q yeais: agog 12 :,li~liYi ~in~ said th'ai::ttiere a_re.fiye..~ sp~cific;~areas tliat~tt~e' Boatci .~i~iild.:tggi~~ at, s#artng °oi` page.~5.. l'fi~:.riieefirig .fi~jan at;6't~d. p'.tTir, 13 ~Commis5~boer 1-lall6~ofi~ sad•tlaaf; y~ats:'a~o, tt~y haci:ci'isc~seiQi~is aliQUt h'epa`iit$~B~ vaccinatfoii5., aricithie Boaid of'Gciiaiity Gomrnissioiieis dfr'~ted:staff to r'riake: siFie: ftiat: dep~rtmen~s ;dicl.:ri4f have to pay,~or vaccinations: Fie aslCeii: ifi.t(is.~rvas: still the cases and ifi was ai~svu~~~ci..~res; • T . •Cbmmissioner Halkiofis asked if tfiere lias trees any~,discussion.on fiow the loeal a5aisfance could :be::expanrlecl:, For'eXptnp)e',•v~ulunfee~~cle,~a.'rtmenf~ coiufd fuel~~~~he, ~ourity' ;diesel puirt~:~it~_at ~"'utilicli1141rks: E{11IS b~recter Jac1~,Ball•sad.#haj ~te~ dQ. sat d~a~.ttiis~ati'fihis•tim~~ T.he-~ci~niyy vehiples; f ~ai~e :a'. riing. tha'k is .iYtouh'ted Qh fitiem to alla~~ for p7ulml?~n9 ~t phis sife..: Ufic[er th'e :ate program, inos~t•of~~~ voiunteer•iiejiartmeiits ai-e~~claiminga~tax credit~~nn'fulef.:Gommis'sior~er•Hal~tsifis said#hal:rit~vould appedr~tliatt'here;~-!opld be mo~sopp'artunities~~or`t.~e~~nunfyto ajd and'assisl: ff~e V'f)futit~er depa~trri~.hf;~:.: Jack~Ball said thaf fn his earlier career he helped'set up.aatelfite fueiii~g.•statior~s;far iafc~nfee•dsparEinierits.. Ne..rffered:ka iitroil~'ott:this;if.the B.oard.wa5 iri~eresfed. ~•vrnm~sstoriec Jacobs said that fie: could sde a. couple. afi jilaaes the.,~Quti~•oan hefp• with hnanees~• He said.tf~at•~G`uilirvr~l Gounta!:is starting-fg hire:fi~llltirrie flrefighters;and make them: Counter err~p~Q`yees~ s~.ffYat thi3~r.Cali. re~si1!e~ b~riefits:. He +~rc~~ld I~k~ to~•see• what the ire depai#ments;th~iiCc~af this idea. He sugg~sied~ tii~irig one:,fu116me.fitefighter pet'~depaifinetit until, • - - ... •every'departmeTlt.bad gne•; l~e;tliinks them needs ft~ be• sours: ftiscussion to talk ~•hraugh ~hese:• acfeas and ,know ~fi~ie Cot~nly cak3.•fielp:. 1-le rnacle. i'efefe~ce;f~ the ic3e~.o~ du~l~~atisin b~';eapilal. equipment He• asked about any type of~s~rstem forsetCing. minimums ar maximums or e~ordiriatitig; heav3r ec~ui~ment. He asked if _bhe; eriti_ty lids the; equipment if 'i#.,`pr'ec~ud'ea• others, ,.,. froiii~ fu~rln~, tt. Rdd 1~tssi~r said that tiie~'sia fiat. tia~rer.afiXttiing t:trt'ri` irf this=areas but tiieji ~©'ould ...• dc~ a Countyv-iida•;ipveritory +~n-equipmen~:and u5t~ t~is fo guicle:.dec~signs: that all, departments rrii9ht.rriaice;. ;Criiiimis5ianeC Jacobs said tlati with~fhe: gfovvtfi~~irit[i the.EEl.Oi~arir3 Waf~rstc~ne ancf .iri the 81?0'~!gre~.belriveen EftandjNlebane; ~i?e needsfor:some cf the de,:par~mente~tvouid. cha:nge~ diarriaticali~t. It•`i~a~ld. b~ gdoii tii; bap"roactrve; aril tit •ha~le.a° plan to, mti~e #t~rward.. .Commissioner Gordon made reference to:page.'three and the eight~v~lunteer fire cieparlirne~its and if= i#• iacludecl f~orth.;~hatfiam ancl,it~nras', ans~!erecl: no., Jac~:Ball;;saicl,tflat tFiere; is. a~ Felatioriahip~vYith. Noitfi: GFiatti~am: •G~miiiissror'ter Gkii••don.asked lidw IVor#fi" GEiatfiain viroialcl. fiE inft~ t~e:five. paints; since, They provide s~•rvice fo Qrange ~o.wnty: Jac(c'Bafl: sai~.that fihe~r;r~ef t+~~~ Ncc~ti i/~iath~'tn, l'ece~itl~"o~ ~tiia tax t'at~, ~alicl tt~e3i •tncli~te.'d: thai tfie~ ~rV'aie `ih fiha prtic~~s: of eitparidfrig; seivices~ and fiii;ii%cj.aclc]itibtial ~ersonnertei man the sedoiicl station: This will: .;. .. .. . in~creas~'fhg capal~ilihe~ cit;seruing;t?ra~ge ~.ourlty„.. . ~C~iiniri9ssxori~i" G'tir~for~ ~iou~d' like. tc-: see, w~tl~ t[i.~..eig~f ~~!IunteeT fife clepaitrri'ehts, information on ~virhat they Have ~nveritor~r and ~apakiifitfes~;, including, C~lortfi Ghatham•. She• • ._ _ as(~ec] abed ttie ta>r'.rate and'tlie, cep~a'1 ~ytil~mr~nt. R.otil,Viss~t:'said that this'infoTmation itVould tie prpirided in ttie f~iaegef doaumettt'pii Wednesday: The ciepatfinents.thata~e asking for: fn~creases.~is year, are•clirectiy rel,'ated,ta• #tifti'~ niaa~ied iri tha riex~fitVa.ye~ir~, .. U~Ierie=~Fou"shee~ asked hovtir.~ many of'tfie; voluhteer~~ciepartments ha~v~ iiaid ~staff.anti Jack Ball'Saicfve~deparrtmenfs' ~C?range• Gravy, Grange Rural,.fVew Hope,, Eno art~l.l~Jbrfti lviiathanr liatce,pstd:staff~. Tfiei iiUmbe~b~'paiii~staf#ya~nes.frortii'tvud.ta seveti'at~.eacF~ o'F~tF~ose,, departments: _ •~ftiim>s~i'oner. ~ 1~allao#i~ made refer rice te'page ~v~. pbirit'~a_u~; ~lie.~ec~rir~ $efitenGs:~,. ariclsaicl tHat if s.fiould read,; "A strategic plan iriusi:•'b~ ~de~ielotled.:.. ° He thiii{fs finat~a' tliiril, neuirai parfy •s~o.~(Id.lie• brought fn to help~devefap this. Stratetlis~ pCa~?~ . ,J~~k'gall sarJ ~tha't.t>ie:fe~leral' go~ett~rttien#: tins s Safer' GXant tfiat~j~ls'k:carn'e'•t~~e'~. 1`kis, allo~ra it6lunteer'fite depai•tirierits to~.viioT~'tawaicl"s' tiitirig additiorial~ pe'rst-rrhel:aii'd provides a. 14 cecfUttmeni: antCfeteritibii'.program tFiat'ttiejr ~ari;ag~SlX fo:r`.. It 'i~ a fnre-year grant: The. f~5t':yeaT. i~ 90%.fi:riadin~, aiizl:~decreas~.s.each~rear: :Join. l~inl~ 5aici ghat nna• of th~~b{99est challenges w.puld bey fhb: cost bf gging~ to paid -, . . s#aff. 'The` ~C~S~n`~l'`ssala~y'is atist not',cpkrTj~e~itivd:"vVitli the, iniur~~c~p~ilities salal~es, JaGk~Ball said•thatthe rescue squads<also~.need to 6e~competa6ve regarding,salary: : ,... p fl,..~..:_ .. ~Cvmimis~toner., Jacobs bald that ~helt, the :C:c~ianty,.'-rotates~ out its .cram ufezs_, . , e ~snou d lie :offered lia'Et'%d. reaciie.squads instead af:fairig 5iiid. He ~i-otJld: lika~#t# #alk afiout:firer~ting5 . ,_ ~nd;how tfi~'fre clepa~rtmerits ,can mprove•~them at~d~ e~pl~n•:it.ta homeowners:•and ~o~ the: media: He~ ~iid. that,~Ji~ire .are.touchy issues a~rau~nd firefi~htei pensions end he'uvould like to loolz.at proposed ctraiiges~.iri'policies dr' legisla'five.:ctiarijes tfiat.migh~ be useful toy EMS, ~resci~e~ squads~~btfired'e{~artmerifs,: ~ ., Chai~'~rey astc~'d abQ'uY the x'1:344 Irii~liori:`Frii`'ttie bilC:stid"where this:'~giufe cairie'fro~,mi.. Jack Ball said'tliatthis was~a program thalwas,put•~ogether with members: of the' Fire Cliie~s _~ 'P,ssociatcifi;. sev..er'a~ cfii_e.:ts,.c~• at tog~ter'eri~d lopleed at s~ime;costs~ati'd came.; ufp: w~th:tfis,figure. This iriiliides~:ccsts:'for: a. liiiildiii~, a :motiite~ classrors'rri, fixed .burn tiuildmgs;,etc~. Hey thinks phis; figuies.~s1aort p~ what;would:be•• rieecled:ftir. #he•whole• Qrograrrr, H~: noticed thole fihere;vuere na f~eiiitiee:far showers Qr restr~iams This•~v~ci~jltl`:generate an' additional cr~~t .Chair Cater asked several clarif~ririg; cjuestiona that i~iere~ ahs~hiecec! ny~ Jack Ball: ,. .. ~Chait•.C~_rey, sugges~eci~ up~:ating th~rCl1~~~:of1~ page 13• and the, mventory`gf equrpment, 7 i.. .. .. C:uri~(n~ss~oner` Gtirdoti a5ke~ the, sta~~'to lii~-.>~ at the.<~ariQtss. ;districts ainsl vvhaf'ttYe; insurance ratings are: ~... ... ~Goinmis~~oneCJacobs as~e~c~it:•.the•Ctiunty~`Commissioner~ iecenteda tQrrrrafirecJUest; fiomti0i'ari~ge Raadiaa Si~iiatl fts~i ta~t~revenue a'nd Rod V~ss'er said no.: Co.mrriissioner Jaciiiis.~ said , at• he-wowld.~ie the. rescue.squacl. being silmilarta the. ~re• d'eparEXrl~n,.ts, m terms: af:public: ~:r .. ~ ..... . _. s~.rv~ce., .~e sugges'te~ arf~ti~ eacii'grdup :vtrho# ~t eiivts~oris-fojr itself at~d deve op a Ieve) !? ayitig, fielei. ~ . Jotin~ Linl~ said that:fhis~as5essmenf~rrvvulsl be ~sluakle tg:tlie respue;squac#s'als~: 2, .lcrrdarttake•Watersn~ec~ NUtnenznr~anaQen,G„u~era~cur a~~•+ «~•~-- ~~ti~rCarjf'rXi~rif enc1, F,~esqurce: Coiisetvetron~ Dire~tor• Dave• Sfa.rical,satd:thiat~he ~ur'pbse.of tfii's ite~i is td seep if`tfie Board is iiitere5tcd ii:p"rcividing;coinmedts tii:the C~ivisiaii aflNa~ei; ual oh #he~~ ro ose Jo an.l~alce;Ni~tCenf tillanage~rne::tlf.'Strategy.'anci 1"ii~al~ I~'llaxiin!?m'Daily Lead. •H"e•:sad,that'it Was iiaYa surprise ~fiatthey f~aue tR deal~ivi~~:riutraents:iii,Jor"dari La)te,~ because'tliere were.•.pre:dictions 20'~t(ears~ ago that there:would be these issues: `The; deadline for"thy 13j~~son t~f~Vli~teT~Ctt~ai~ is:l~lfay~ ~~ fof eo-xfcrterit~, 1-le poipted o~tit~sorne=atcss of~the waf:er`sh'ecl, cin' ~ map.. The: cufreti~f~piii~_riss"al is'that~th~. R1ltr:Q. `n'roi.iid ref Yec~tmiiiiendatitris' fo tFiie, Ei~vronrraental';1~11.an~agement.Gbm;m~ssio~r4p July:and they m lit adop~.it.in.~eptsmper~ lt.wou_I:d, e iirl~s~an~l Ut ttietnr iii lece ari ~200~ . tape two ~;e~f'a:$~3. trial~ze t~ ~ ~ 1?. He• iriacle Ye~eieni:e ~Ea~ page' five ~vf'tfie. report and the..nutr;~tit F.edufct =aii Fequ~i~meh'~ .i/amrnissaneG (-lalkiatis: niacJe.refe~en~ce tv~ [ecipcing nitr~sgen ,apd..sa~d;i<tiat a •huge~golf :. i oaiximut~ity'~-as;~Usf.appi`siveci m :Ciiathar~i C~!uFitji: ~'bIf'cQUrses•are some' of the trigge:st. users of'nitrngen...Daue'Btaricil said~thata iot~oftfie nitrogen comes from municipal~waste~vater tCeatmorit ~1a~nt~~:~ntt.~#here,:are three in th~~ ~sttioular I~asn. 'G'ram Benedict•ei<plaiiied tei'i total, mafaage'rnotifistr'ategies;~as, ferllows:, J,ozclan Lake; Non-Ppinrt source IVutriertf;Managemenf 5tc~tegX 1'5 T~IP.S; Nutrient, 1Nhp• V1lNat Sourc+j 1 ~!.Agnciittuie• L4C7~I~~D Local advisoiy,''.rcamm'rftees imp(ement'BMP' 2 ~ 1Viytnent t-Aar-i3gei»~rit~ D'1llft',7: T`i'aining foi~fartil~iz~et o.Y.bio=solic~s~a~plcatots: . .:... - .NPDC.~5~.1?hase, l) .y .. P •~ I .~ ~ . ~ i it#pp1~+.P~iase,ll, to~ a11. I.oc~M. mwnictpal~hes; - ~q~tnt3r iiYClus~oii ts~ ancertaiii• ~ -'Stomai i!t(a~ir(°. Mule:. E:C~ . Ialevu~~cieY~l~ipiiricrit'u~auld,('equir~~BIV(R's: • Juri~~.ictons required Yg.`build.~tarm Wader' retrafts• ~ 5-,Trading F`'& 1 t4l~ility to develop tradfng.or other nutrient loading , o{'fse# pptiun$ b~itn-~~g ~incl, among p'of[tt and ~~ tion=point suiirdes~ 6 ~ .Forestry E~- ... ..:.. _. Pr~hati~est nQtifir;a#iQ~i, Sele~ti~e: bta~f~r lie(3testih~ ~' R ~daR~ive'iVlartagement' p~ ~ I ~val~at~: progress a.~'NNIS~~nc~ adjust . i~ -~:'ButFer Protection EG F~cpand btifi'er rules from Neuse~ &Tar-Pamlico 9 =1tVastevuatei:' Land A~pl• ~~~ Iriv's"stigate~.~treiigtlieriiti~. its'jii3i-mif:tirt~ paxi~ram 1't]'_ flt~-;~ite~Vl(aist~uva~~: C?'t~fQlEl-1. ,.. ~ ' 1i1Cc~r~~VtittJt,Erlvi'ro?im~rifial. Nealtfi'- taduce~ t~i~+-F front :[ltItI1US... ,Commissioner Jacobs said that`these strategies track a num6er'ofgoals-that the.Gourity ~3~mmi$~[Q1;~f5rs Frye;,, a!1S~ -ieawottld ~ugg~:s~ tje~nQ~'i4~r~ t~ia~.£tier_Ctiurafj'r, shouMcl li~~ aib~e,fcr h~Ve ti7e~at~thorityttz raga(.ate tFidsecs~istei~ris:.a~:.o~R~osed,to,tfie~tat'e'r~gutatirig tli~iii~. He,'~+i-,as inf~•i-ested irr Nia~ar T]eii~s~ IetEer.baclcsia the :CQU~ty aE'iout conserrra~io~n'wher'~ 'f~tr. met?ti4,,:n~` tr,~c]ing c~ediis, Hi~: ~o'uld ~ri~e, tc~ ~alf~#o 17.iarFiarn atiouti: Fiaj+~ tl~e~i ~re:gbtng ~Q cori~'~rariso~e peojiTe~,in-tlae Little RiveF acea~ foi;'p~ote'ctin."'9 their wafer supply: . ~ Id''.. wai,~'ano. ~f dour: ear~tQ. sfudy, ;C~rramssiorler ~)acobs ~~d ~hia~~$he ~c5unjy, shoo nQii ~ Y. w this 6ec~u~e:,t~iete coulcl~iie, ac' di~f~fieiit regt:r(ato~ e(n~ardnmei~t. 'Commi'ssioner Halkiotis:asked: ifffie~ agricultural community: was aware,nf all:of this and' D`a'it~, Sf~ficil.s~,i ~~?~t tla;~j~.~i`~; be~a~iiil~~;:a1N~,t`~. b~ ~: ~6miiiissi~otaer H;rllkic#i~ ~:~ic~ .th~'#'tlil~: i~ going'fo. fie; [iQri'ifG: Cv,_rimmissioner Gx~r~dan sacC f~t~afi:sf~e•~n!.anders• hov4t harcl~this•r-uf11 fall on~rarage.. Couniy,, tt~,sjCif~~~~~he~ t(iaf;#li~.rg ~ire;•tnas_sue pollut~tit~ gti,n~ ii~r„but ¢rang~i C~uriC~ vsrll :li'eat ti:i~ tivrcleri;. the} t~:~iiiit sure inihat;:tlie I/•oltntji can ~saji :t~.etv--eer"r rio~ arid'Ma~r~~1~. Th~~+Ci~izeris for Glean )ttFat~r a[id, ' Dave'Si:.ancil said! $k'taftfii~~ts ~a..lling, irttb twt~'~arr(.p$: tfie .Haani l~i~"ret AssemEfy'have lieeii.:lre'ry':- supp'r~.r6v~: of D1.IIi;C~ s~ P"rcijiosecl. males. The: itnpsct5~ iii terms:of ne~v deuelopmentand axis#ing d'evelopmen't.; mi~~tt~fall'heaviest'on fihe•.urban areas They ate yery.crinc_e,;,rrae~i about; fhb ~npgcfsoit'ti~:?~!' cie~telopm~ent. l~ migfi't requir'e• D~rt.aiii. t/fiape('~H(Il,,~siii~ lsa~rbori ~e~rafitting tleirsta'ri~a5iuatet contcils'in ~.axisting c3e'velo~rnehts. ivi~/ASi~;, :Eh~•Cil3i'o.~~t~rarham; at~d: c~tfier'prou~dets are• going o wari~to: take it sfgwer be~caus~ it a .. .. - .. t'n~~li'~.riri~ c`1p vittia~s tiseided;fgt''th~:~GVa#er s~aRP~Y. 16 ;Cliar'~~are'~ pQin~ed:ou~tkia't;ifiis ~tCa:~ess'into~a~c~~ riofi:frioue,~ast. C~oir~rr'rissionei G'ciidori'agieed~n+itif:,draftiii~_a letter to•'~llttGQ~ 6u#:she'tf~inl~s: tFiat tfie nfoJ-mation in' t>.ie packed i5'fop: suppartive'~rid maxb~it:shr.?uld~ b~ more a~Q.ng the.°iine's~.af vlhaf .-,...." .. r . G?!1~#~~A i$ sa~iTig. . :Commissioner Jacobs said that'tfie County ;Commissioners sJiauld. sfress its key points in #.~i~ Leiter. a6oti£~foY.~stry_;:~#c, • ;Chsir fair-ey said, to aitl.~(iat tf -~<S.tat~ has~~to: ta~k~ ffai~,~Jeaii role iii:s~stab[isliirig,fhe au~ority=°fpr~lcscal governments :to:do th'e ~fings ~a~ need; fo~ be lone;. t3av~e.Stan~~i surd fitia# Tnang~e ~ wauid (~~, cbmm~ back iNif(i a .requ~'s# fot,$$~~ Boni ~...:... each jurisclisfioii to fallotiv°a[~: oii ttie arla~fiue: maria~ernent"idea..s~tlicciu~h'the eiid af~2(?t}~. 11~f'ttft :rro•'~urt~ef~e_ims to. c3ieci~:ss•, tlia wai~:~es~iori yvas adjQiarrr~cl~at'7:1~5 ~.[r-, IUI.Qses ~Gareji~ ~Jr., Cfrair D,anna S.. Bake4r ~lerl~~q :tte.I3cia.Cd, 17 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMIVIISSIO111ER5 ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT IVleeting Date: May 23, 2005 . Action Agen~ Item No. SUBJECT: Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service Issues DEPARTMENT: ManagerlEmergency PUBLIC HEARING: {YIN) Na Management ATTACHMENT(S): 5/20/05 Staff Memo PowerPaint Slides # 0105194 BOGG Agenda Abstract wl Attachments INFORMATION CONTACT: Jahn Link or Rbd Visser, ext 2300 Jack Ball, ext 3030 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 7328181 Chapel Hill '968-4501 Durham 688 X331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To discuss various issues related to the structure and delivery of volunteer fire and rescue services and other related emergency services in Orange County. gACi4GROUND: Volunteers continue to play a vital rate in the delivery of fire protection, fire suppression, and rescue services throughout Orange County. This includes response not only during day-ta-day emergency situations, bud also during larger events such as manmade or natural disasters or hazardous weather situations. Stresses an volunteer agencies and individual volunteer emergency responders continue to grow, as demands on volunteer time needed for additional training and coverage expand. In recent years, #hese demands have led many volunteer departments to hire permanent and/or temporary staff to supplement the coverage that volunteers have been able to provide, particularly. during nom~al weekday business hours. This in tum has placed more strain on volunteer departmental budgets, and has increased the competition far scarce tax dollars to address the increasing personnel, . operating and capital casts of providing high quality, effective, and timely emergency services. This work session provides the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to receive a brief preview of same of the issues for FY 2005-06 related to volunteer emergency service provision that will be addressed in more depth during June budget work sessions. It also gives the Board a chance to discuss in Eiroad terms how the County might assist volunteer departments in areas such as training coordination, joint purchasing of supplies and equipment, cross-leveling to minimize duplication of resources, and similar issues. Staff have provided several attachments to this abstract to provide background information far the BOGC. A staff memo outlines in more detail same of the issues men#ioned in this abstract. A handout comprised of PawerPoint slides describes some of the structure currently in place at the federal, State, and County level to provide assistance to votunteer departments. Previous 18 BUCC agenda materials provide a discussion of the approach to rescue service provision in Orange County. Ft[VANCfAt_ IMPACT. There is no financial impact directly associated with discussion of these issues: However, direction the Board may provide to staff could have impacts on how resources are expended far fire and rescue services, including equipment acquisition, joint purchasing, etc. ~ . a ttECOtittMENDATI~N(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the issues outlined in the accompanying materials, and other points of interest to the Board, and provide appropriate direction to staff. 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange County Commissioners John LinI~ County Manager FROM: Jack W-Ball, Emergency Management Director RATE: May 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Emergency Fire and Rescue Services Introduction This memo is intended to pravide background information far the Board's discussion of volunteer fire and rescue service issues at your May 23 work session including: the current structure of fire and rescue services throughout Orange County; same observations about some of the challenges and opportunities facing the County and its volunteer emergency service agency partners; and some areas the Board may wish to have staff e7cplore with agency representatives in maze detail regarding enhanced County support to agencies, opportunities far efficiencies, and the-like. Structure t7range County's emergency fire and~rescue services consist of two municipal .fire degarhnents, eight volunteer fire departments, and two volunteer rescue departments. The volunteer organizations are incorporated through the State, and where appropriate and applicable, are franchised by the County Commissioners to provide certain emergency services. Under the oversight of their respective Boards of Directors, these agencies act independently of each other in their operations. Each has a strong reputation in the community and each understandably takes pride in its awn individuality. There is a strong network of mutual aid understandings between departments that assures Orange County residents that when additional resources are needed in one jurisdiction, say to fight a major fire, adjacent departments will respond immediately to assist in the incident ar to pravide interim coverage to the rest of that one . jurisdiction. In the early 1990x, County staff and volunteers worked together to conduct an extensive assessment of and recommendations for tree best ways to provide rescue services throughout Orange County. Generally speaking, the approach involved developing and enhancing ire- Countycapabilities far high frequency rescue incidents through resources that would be deployed as necessary on a countywide basis. Law frequency ar highly specialized rescue services would be solicited as needed from resources beyond Orange County. Mare than a decade later, we believe that the "rescue service matrix" developed as a part of that analytical process (and provided far reference elsewhere with your May 23' agenda materials} continues to pravide a solid framework for rescue service provision in Orange County. 20 Challenges As the demand far service continues to grow, and the availability of volunteers to provide coverage in the fire districts declines, increased supplemental paid assistance to provide coverage during peak hours continues to emerge as a solution of choice. This method enables departments to cage with the growing demands. However, while individual departments provide for the hiring of personnel, disparities may arise between departments in the benefits and salaries provided. Many departments face .financial constraints that preclude their taking on added responsibilities such as retirement and workers' compensation associated with employees. As grange Gounty aantinues to grow and face the challenges of tomorrow, it is imperative to improve on our abilities to provide the best emergency services to our overall community. We must collectively look beyond "the way we've always done if' and expand our capabilities across and between service districts to address the demands pf a progressive public safety system. In several meetings I have fiad. with the administrative and operational officers of same of the fire and rescue departments, some departments have been very receptive to the notion of an integrated approach to providing the best emergency services to County residents. Qthers have expressed understandable concerns about the potential that their agencies may play diminished roles in providing countywide services. With multiple agencies providing similar services {such as light vehicle extrication} in some cases, there are legitimate concerns about balancing the need for adequate amounts of readily available, widely deployed, specialty tools with the interest of ensuring that scarce tax dollars are not expended unnecessarily on duplication of services or equipment_ I believe there is a clear need far a cooperafrve effort among volunteer agencies, the County, and municipal departments to determine a standard that would identify what tools and equipment should be purchased, by which departments, so as to ensure compatibility of equipment and training across agencies. In a recent conversation I had with the president of the Chief's' Council, he identified the fallowing as needs for volunteer agencies: 1) Face to face interaction with a representative of the Board of Commissioners; ~,~ A training facility in the central part of the County (Fnote here that House ,81111655, sponsored by Representatives Faison, Hackaze}~, and Insko has since been irziraditced and if appraveci; watcld eartztat k $1,34, t)t?0 to acquire land atzd eattsttuet a regiattal fire traittittg facility itt Qratzge Cottrzty;) 3) Input in fire protection needs for future growth and subdivision development; 4) Additional fire marshal staff to assist with fire insurance ratings of the fire departments, granting, and County fire administrative issues; and 5) Representation from the Chiefs' CounctI on the communication upgrading project. Qgportunities I have prepared a group of slides (provided separately as an attachment for this agenda item} that outlines some of the support that is currently available at the federal, state, and county level to assist our volunteer agencies stretch their resources. In recent years, County staff have tried to improve assistance to various fire and rescue agencies in areas of training coordination, incident reporting, and eontracthzg and purchasing, among others. However, with the full participation and cooperation of the volunteer departments, there may be other things the County can do to . assist the volunteer fire and rescue agencies to provide the best possible service in the mast cost 21 effective manner. While there are different challenges and issues that affect operations in each department; many common challenges -and opparitinities -exist. As part of your discussion at the May 23 work session, the Board may wish to consider whether some or all of the fallowing undertakings might prove worthwhile: l) An effort to build on opportunities to address common challenges by considering the combined purchase and acquisition of equigment and. supplies. Results so far of the ongoing study by the Robert Segal CPA firm of County and school operations suggest that same of the cost saving methods applicable to the County and bath school systems {particularly through joint .purchases and contracts} may hgcevvise be beneficial to the County and volunteer fire and rescue agencies. ViThile some departments have already collaborated to purchase some items together, I believe that greater savings could be gained through a central purchasing point to ensure the bast price is obtained. 2) .As discussed previously, the establishment of standards Countywide would ensure that every emergency responder is provided with the same quality of tools, equipment, and protective clothing. It would also ensure that the equigment would be compatible and ifinembers from one department had to use equipment from another department; they would be familiar with the operations and could easily use it without delays. 3} As our county continues to grow and service demands continue to increase, it would be prudent to be proactive and plan for changes in our public safety delivery systems. County staff can assist volunteer departments through use of Gl5 tools and advice on the applicability of land use regulations regarding feasible and desirable locations for future fire and rescue stations. Staff can also work with dcparfnients as needed to help answer questions of what to do with buildings and assets if an organization can na longer meet growing demands and needs to .disband. ~) Staff could undertake a dialogue with the leadership of the fire departments to discuss the long-term future of the delivery of fire services in the County. A strategic plan. could be developed to identify how the increased demand for services will be met in the upconning years. Any strategic plan should be developed through a coordinated effort from the volunteer departments and county representatives, but rnaderated through an independent agent that has experience and knowledge in transitions of public safety systems, The plan should address where we have been, •where we are and where we want to go, and should complement the county's comprehensive planning. 5} Staffcauld review with fire and rescue service leaders the viability of the existing rescue service matrix to determine if it remains a valid framework for service delivery ar if updates ar modifications aze in order. Conclusion All these issues are not unique to Qrange County; counties throughout the state and country face these challenges every day. The way in which they are addressed means the difference in beuzg proactive or reactive: A proactive approach delivers a better product and provides for a phased in approach in meeting the needs of the community. 22 Volunteer Fire and P~escue Programs ..~~...' ~- i`' :t%r~~'v '~. • Volunteer Assistance can be found on various levels of Governmei~.t - Federal Assistance - State Assistance - Local Assistance Volunteer Fire and ~.escue Programs • Federal pro~:ams: - ltur~l Community Fire Protectitrn Programs • Serve camrnunities 10,000 ar less • Provides cost share for training, equipment and help organize rural/local volunteer departments - FITtE ACT G12AN? • Matching grants for equipment, training, and safety prognrms 1 23 Volunteer F%re and Rescue Programs • Federal Programs - Purchasing GSA Fire Equipment using FEDSTRIP • When fire departments have cooperative fire agreements with State . Forestry have access to ' fire equipment sources - Community Facility Program • Direct, guaranteed Joans and grants far community facilities and equipment Volunteer Fire and Rescue Programs • Federal Programs - Surplus Personal Property Donation Program • ~ Nonfederal arganizatians to obtain properly no longer needed by Federal Government • SrnaIl service charge far . handling, transportation and administrative expenses - Federal Excess Personal Property • Loan agreement of excess federal equipment abtahied from military and other federal sources to state foresters ~vho sub-loan to local firefighting organizations 24 Volunteer Fire and Rescue Programs' • State Assistance - Voltmteer R:escue/EMS Rand • Matching grants up ro ~ 15,4D0 - Volunteer Fire Depatiments Fund • Provide Matching Grants to Volunteer Fire Depatimeats - Grants not to exceed g20,QDd t)ll Volunteer Fire and Rescue Programs a State Assistance - Purchasing through State Administration • Purchase gas, fuel, equipment, tires, supplies Rcim6urse ro department on fuel and gas tax - State Benefits '• Death Benefit • Worker's Comg • Funernl expenses • Pension • Child Education • Spouse Education • Education for volunteer • Retirement 3 25 V®lunteer Fire and R.eseue programs ° Y,OC0.~.1~.S515taI1Ce ,~~ty~ ; ~.p~ - Provide vehicles ifavailable ~~ ~~ far attending training ,- Purchase of Office Supplies through Purchasing - Assist in developing RBPs 17 ~~ and obtaining services (i.e. ground ladder testing) ~~ ~ -a - Pravicfe I3epatitis B vaccinations ~, '~ ,~4. - Assistzvith training needs vr~t ~ A~~~~ -Work to establish face tax cafes far funding of budgets - Replace expended medical supplies 4 26 asANGS cavt~' saARn a~ caxi~ISSZaNE~s Action Agenda Item No ,}~,'-(?.,, ACTIaN AGENt}A I~'EM A$BTRACT ideating Date: October 5; 1994 BUB~?ECT: Rescue Service Provision in Orange County rrrrrrr..~r....rr..r~r..rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~.rrrrr.wrrr..r.~rrrrr.. LEPARTMENT Emergency Management/ PLTSLTC SEAEtxHG YES NO X County Manager rrrrr.rrrrrrrrrr-r----.._r.~..+.-..--- rrrrr...rrr r~+r..r.q~rrr_rrr.. ._rrrr..r ATTACffidENT ~S ~ 9(29/94 Staff Report Reserve Service Matrix Draft Agreement Between (CRS & SOBS ZNFaRMATIaN CaNTACT Nick Aaters,•ext~3030 Rod• Visser, ext •2300 TELEPI;aNE NLtMi3ER 13i.llsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Mebane 227-2031 atn:ham 688-7331 rrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrr rr..rr__.._.~r....r---wwrr__rrrrrr_rr..rr-_rr...r__.~.w r....~_r.+r.r PURPOSE: Ta receive a report on ,plans far the provision of rescue service throughout Orange County, SACKGRaUND: At the April 19, 1994 meeting, the Hoard of Cammassianers heard a request Pram the South Orange Rescue Squaii to consider establishing a South Orange Rescue Service D3.stzict. At that tame, the Board asked staff to pregare a report after reviewing what rescue service needs exist in Orange County, what aptaans exist far providing those servicesr and how might those alternatives be financed. Ia a series of meetings over the past several months, County staff and various emergency response agency personnel discussed historical levels af,rescue service and yneadence of rescue calls, desired Levels of service, and options for providing rescue service. The mast signa.facant outcome of these discussions has been agreement by the South Orange Rescue.Squad and the Orange County Rescue Squad that they will work~and train ja~.ntly to provide basin anal 'specialized rescue service throughout Orange County, with assistance on basic services Pram other emergency response agencies. Additional world remains to be done in identifying any pressing rescue equipment needs and haw those needs could be funded. Following further discussions with rescue squad leaders, staff plan to present more specific recammendatians concern3,ng equipment needs and funding samet~ne during the next several months. RECaMMENL-ATTaN: The Manager recommends that the Bawd receive the report far information only at this time. 27 ----~ TO: Orange County Beard of Cammissianers Jahn Link, County Manager FROM: Rod visser, Assistant County Manager Nick Waters, Director of Emergency Management DASE: September 29, 1994 RE: Rescue Service Options During the last few months; we~have conducted a series of very productive meetings with various emergency service pr+aviders to obtain information concernz.ng the provision of rescue service in Orange County. Ae have examined how rescue service is aurrently.pxovided, what options exist far.providing.that service, and what we think is the best approach far prav~.ding rescue service in Orange County today. Our analysis included a review of the diffexent categories of rescue service that are and should be provided; the historical and anticipated incidence of xescue ca11s in each. of those categories; and the current, and desirable future, capabilities of agencies to respond to various categories of rescue calls. The matrix at Attachment.l represents our effort to succinctly capture the-main points of our analysis. - During staff and agency discussions, widespread agreement emerged an a•number of paints and principles: * the driving force behind the structure of rescue service-must be the best passible service to Orange County's citizens, regardless of which agencies provide that service; • * the most economical use ot~limited resources for rescue, being wary of unnecessary duplication of service capability; * the need far e~ctensive coordination and cooperation between the rescue-squads, volunteer fire departments, municipal fire departments, Orange County Emergency Management; and other emergency responders; * the focus of rescue service provision should be Cauntyvri.de, rather than by individual response axea;~ * resources should be allocated in griority.to meeting the mast likely and frequent categories of .rescue calls (pramarily light vehicle extrication) while ensuring that a capability to respond to any of the categories of rescue calls exists (among agencies either internal or external .to Orange County). A strong spirit of cooperation among emergency response agencies has led to the development of a draft working agreement {Attachment 2) between the South Orange Rescue Squad~(SORS) and Grange County Rescue Squads (OCRs). OGRS has agreed to provide heavy' rescue throughout Orange County, SORS will provide technical rescue services th~caughaut Orange County, and the rescue squads and fire departments will work to provide light vehicle extricatioa, which is by far the mast frequently required rescue service. County staff will work with, rescue providers to augment their organic rescue. capabilities with centralized resources. Centralizing certain resources should help 28 min.imi~e unnecessary duplication and provide a mare econa~nical approach to providing rescue equipment needed for less common rescue calls. .As an example, staff will. explore the possibility of staring and transporting hydraulic extrication equipment on a County vehicle which could be carried to an accident scene far use by trained rescuers from a volunteer fire department. We need to discuss rescue service financing further with the rescue squads, bat we feel there is genera]. agreement now that we should not pursue rescue service district taxes, s9.nce the planned focus is~now on Countywide rescue service provision. One option we will explore carefully is that .of appropriating funds annually through the operating budget ar CxF.af the Department a~ Emergency l4lanagement to address well-documented equipment ar training needs• to enhance Countywide rescue se~rice prov~.sion. In the short term, we expect that the rescue squads will scan present a list of the mast pressing rescue equipment needs. Soth squads will be applying to the State for ].995 grant funds to cover same of those equipment needs. We recommend that the County review its sales tax revenue picture and at a future Couunissioners` meeting, consider trying to provide matching fnnds far any State grant. money received for recognized equipment needs. zn the longer term, we expect to word with the rescue squads to develop a multi-year plan faz equipment and training needs that the County Would review and consider daring the annual operating anii capital budget processes. We will. be haPPY to respond to your questions and perform any additional research that you may find helpful.. 29 A#-E~~%-,~~~sr- ~! ~ ~ n en ro ~ ~ rn ~ H ~ rs ~ H ~x mar ~ H HN fi ~ ~ ~ H n ~ C ~ - -1 ~~ G C =f ~ 3G y 7 C' ~ "' ~ c H C ~ `~~ ~ ~ H ~ H«e r iH w n c~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G a ~ Ht~=i ~~i ~ ~ H."".e H~ H o ~ ~ o~+ off b z zn zn h ~ ~ n ev ~ ~ ~ ~K ° s t~s a m .e. rn u z ~..~ in a a __ a no vr-~nrr1~ o r3o no no us a o~i4o nro ~ OH oH'O~ ~ CH CH CH ~ Ct] ~~7KC~r1 ~ti~ . its ~h~,f ~~~~ .a+ ~~ K~ k~ ~ a+ mz R' ~H ~ C~]H~ ~ ~ p~ Uri H ~ fro ~ ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ a+ cs~n,~n~n ors ~ n*~ ~no~na xsn ~ cr~M o~n~t-~ ~n c~canc~c~a e~e~ off cc~c~r~rt .c~~ oc~ m.~c~~ n~ ~~ pH[~n~Hy OH H ~~ GCyCy",~ CH ~ ~C~a~CyCy ~~ ~~ r~ r+ n r+ n ~ C''~ ~ H r H u~iH x ~ zQ H~ ~ ~~ .a, y ,i ~ tai *~~. ~4 y v . ~" ~~' t~~ tn~ ~t°=1~~y ~ty*7 ~L'' ~~+ Ki~tl,mM H~ c~ c'~~ ~r+ CLC' ~C' G7 C' ~L7~t7~ fC~ Gr Gr yr~irsH'1v7t~TJ ~N Wit" ~H ~ C~' t"7y Cy rH~eZ-t-t HH OG'! OH r~3~! y~° C~`]H '~y ~-y-~ ~ °~ °~ °c~-a ro~cnz ~'~ bs~ Weiss Doooro ~r`M+3 t~~ ta~ ~H [~3W GnM ~H rtip~rrj L'"?. CnH ~R+ ~CM~~Hy R+ HG ti7 H tj7 H c+y H t+J [_! C O H H CrJ ° ~ ,~. 3y -. H iCts ~cn ~m aau~ t7C aac x ~~ ~ Cy~+~iya ~ ~z F.,S G , ~ y N ",,,~ r ~ ~~y ~ ,tea. ;~ H h L'~C Cri~~"H2C9 C H ~ ~ n C:f Ki v M n `.. ` cs c~ o~ ~~ o Q a o a o a o o r ~ a ts~ H H ~~ H `~'~ 30 Agreement In Principle Between South Grange Rescue Squad and t' orange County Rescue Squad an the Provision of Rescue Services 6Tithin orange County 1. The &quads agree to work together to provide Rescue Services on a county-wide basis. Bath Squads will. provide Light ~Tehicle Rescue within their respective geographic areas due to the significant and demonstrated need for this service in bath ends of the county. ~. OCRS will be the lead agency far the provision of Heavy Rescue within the county. 't'hey will host the equipment, training and response team related to this service due to their proximity to bath major interstates within the county. Their large rescue truck will serve as the platform far this service and will be equipped as necessary. . 3. SORB will be the lead agency for the provision of Technical Rescue within the county, to include High-Angle,. Swiftwater and Confined-Space Rescue. They will host the equipment, training and response team associated with these services due to their current level of training and equipment. ~ . 4. A member of either Squad may serve an either the Heavy Rescue and/ar Technical Rescue response team. Any interested member would be required to be a member in `goad standing of their respective Squad and would not be required to also join the other Squad in order to participate.. All prospective response team 3nembers would have to meat the same minimum entry certifications and training standards as set Earth by each.respanse team. 5. The Squads will present a joint list to the county commissioners detailing thea.r immediate equipment needs. They will also submit joint Rescue Service budget proposals in the future, detailing their projected equipment and training needs. 6. The Squads will work together to provide a joint initial training program far all new members of bath arganiaatians: Tn the future this pragram~.would be conducted in canjunctian with the training of new members of QCEMS and would cover bath EMS and Rescue skills. 7. The Squads will. work together to development common operational polidies far Rescue Services, as related to each of the various services provided. . 8. The Squads will wa~rk with the Fire Departments of the county to develop a common standard for training and egv.ipping all Fire Department units which might respond to a light'vehi~ele accident, This standard would include specific pieces of equipment and skills required to perform certain basic automobile extrication techniques. DAFT ~:°~:~.r; ... ` ==}~' ~•~}~~-` - .. ~ MEMORANDUM ~"'~~F~a'-~i~ ~ ~ • •Orange County Board of Commissioners ~...,:.~:,;.r.y.. r ~r: ~:I`R0~.1~I::J ~::' ~: ~. ~ John Link, County Manager ,~. ~ June 20, 2005 ~~'' `` `~ ~'~~ -'` ~ ' ~ •~ roach to Initiating FirelRescue Service Study ~~~`~;sj~.' ~~~::{a: • Suggested APP ~:~;:Atr~.e..Board s:work•session on May 23, 2005, Commissioners discussed a staff report and t •, ..;~;.recommendati6ns regarding how the County might assist the volunteer fire and rescue agencies to ,_a,~prpvde;tle,best possible service in the most cost effective manner. The Board generally endorse `~th:~~.iri%tiafigii of a study of taus subject during FY 2005-06. ~~•a:.. _., . iecommenc~ed.2005-06 operating budget was on its way tb the printer the very evening we ~~ ~t1~.sa.~scui<ysiaai, .sa there was not an opportunity forme to• specifically earmark recommende LPL 7i~$`„L.:k•.+. 1. ~•,vr•h%F.:y 1:• ~..; :..:. ... .:: ... ~ ' p..~':' •Wn.• L h 1 ~~~fiiudngfgr,ltlusundertal~ing in nextyear, s budget. However, I suggest that the Board consider -~~~usuig,the~~$25`000~:included in myrecom~.ended. budget far Mauager s Miscellaneous as a source !=~~=fo~an~!:fariclaug ~thatt.may be needed.to initiate this study effort during the next fiscal year. q~`~1"yci~:x:r1£+~;i,`'r..•,~trri ~~~~.,T„~•.i„i:'_.'. ~.: ;;: r; ~..; •. ~w~2iA.t~tTits,:.go~uut•;I do,,not.believe.that we can accurately estimate the cost of such a study, ecause we ~,.:~FGhave`ii'o~ receitly:ciiscissed•with the.volunteer agencies a realistic and prioritized list of the specific ~`~ {•'~~'-`+=}°~'°~''~'"' :5"'"~.:' •:' ~ .': •... .• .~ .,~ : • ~ ~ could range from a few thousand dollars ~?:~ssii'es;:v~e; ci~l~ectivel~Y~vant to review. The cost of the work• F~r'~a~`~~''~4•"~`'~'~``•'• ~ • ••• • of dollars depending an the scope of work that the County asks an k`s~`fo:mJauj!'tees':of t]iousaiids , ;,,•+~~nt,:~.~1.+'1.'~3:~i~:'N T,i+~.l~t~2.~{::~.•:.:r~'~` : Fs~a:F~qutside;cousultant to undertake. •Emergency Management Director Jack Ball has brought to my ~,5:~,: :.~ •at~ent?.onra~YOl~iiteer emezgency service study in Montgomery County, Virginia t cast "~~~'~"``'~ic'"~~'~a~e1'~F~ 35000, but I cannot say at this time whether the scope of work there parallels what ~,:,:: ~:... . ~;Nh~~„m.ayulttmatelysdetermine should be reviewed in Orange County: A similar study was can ucte ~~; _ `•~• ght years ago of a cost of $25,000. ~~.~`ii~Z~Tew.Hanover:Caunty,.NC about ei ^.,~1'~1~,y.t4^V~`lu'.;f-_if...:::5~ t..r .. ,• ...: t.; ~',`~-,'~~-.••-~-.~,,~, ~clic~:, $aye', some mfonmal •discussions several years ago with volunteer agency representatives ~regardu.g.topics :that might be useful in helping to establish a study scope of work. A few a ese ~.s:ww ~~~°~~.re:listed below', and might serve as a starting point far shaping the scope of a 2005-06 study: lS,{y~.. •r ~+r.Y. `~ g^~~~~Identi~ areas.where. County fire service could be mare proficient and effective. s•••=®r~ ~,Im. rove~Coiin. fire rotection services by identifying areas with excessive response times an ';;,r••:.R-:,traweLcli.stances.based on. existingfire district boundaries and station locai~.ons. n~=~,~~`'a`~'".~~:;''•....`.... • ,:. • .. . ••• tm.ent, staffing and retention needs ofthe volunteer fire and rescue ~~ ~:;~~~~ Ideitify~ fiitire iecrui ,:~: ,Yr• ~Ix. ~::..::: ~~ ~~~`r cY t[~e~1~3LtI12EAts: :. ~ "• • r~n:•, ~:Identify;fiiture ••equipment needs of the volunteer fire and rescue departments with stattan '~''~ *'~~~-1o~~ati6iisi fire and rescue districts based on projected future residential and commercial growth '..J' h.:!h::.:~.'ti i~ ':~~.. ,i}~i~1''~C~~~' 31 ;:~; ' ~~f 3 2 ~` • Iden ' areas where group purchasing for equipment and personnel benefits costs could be .y ~` ~'==: implemented. to reduce expenditures. ~;''z~ • Make recommendations on improvement to district boundaries based an Department of .- Insurance and/or Insurance Services Office (ISO} requirements for insurance grading. + On May 23, we talked about the following considerations related to strengthening volunteer fire and rescue service: . • Combined purchase and acquisition of equipment and supplies where feasible. • Establishment of standards Countywide that would ensure that every emergency responder is provided with the same quality of tools, equipment, and protective clothing, compatt'ble between departments. • Plan for changes in our public •safety delivery systems through use of GIS• tools and advice an the applicability of land use regulations regarding feasible and desirable locations for fuivre fire and rescue stations. • Undertake a dialogue with the leadership of the fire departments and rescue squads to discuss the long-term future of the delivery of volunteer emergency services in the County and develop a strategic plan to identify how the increased demand for services will be met in the upcoming yeazs. ® Review with fire and rescue service leaders the viability of the existing rescue service matrix to determine if it remains a valid framework for service delivery or if updates or modifications ate in order. I recommend that during the remainder of calendar year 2005, staffproceed to work with the volunteer and municipal emergency response agencies to perform an inventory bf the available personnel, equipment, and facilities resources throughout the County. Simultaneously, we can review the 1994 rescue service matrix and update it as necessary. We would use the info~matian thus gained to develop, with input from volunteer emergency service leaders, a scope of work to be approved by the BOCC for a study.of the best future approaches to providing for the continuation of high quality emergency services in Orange County. As the Board has suggested, we will also coordinate with the North~Cazolina Department of Tn~~rance to ascertain the degree to which they maybe able to provide free or low-cost technical assistance to the County staff in a study effort. If the $25,000 set aside in Manager's Miscellaneous proves to be inadequate to carry out the study scope of work desired by the Soazd, we would recommend additional funding in the 2006-07 budget, to include Commissioner Jacobs's suggestion that we consider earmazking a small contribution from the tax proceeds of each fire district to help complete a study. -~a ~ie ~~: ~~: :.~ ~. 33 Gwen Harvey _ ' t=rarrr: Travis Crabtree [t'CrabtreeC~lcr.carrbaro.ncusj . Serer Wednesday, January 10, 20[17 5:25 PM ~ • To: Kent McKenzie Cc: Trey Mayo Subject: Fre Rescue Sludy ~ , i understood this to be a fire and rescue study. it appears that they just interviewed a person or two from each departrnerrt and inserted their cammerris lulu a template. Once the template was complete forthe first department, they produced a d'rfin far the other volunteer departmerrfs with siigitt variations. 1 could have done this study with a dig'rtat camera for about $500 ($200 bf which was far the camera). The county was robbedti Under the;scope of ~. fire rescue stridy,• I wonder vifiy Chapel hill, Carr6ara, .North Chatham and Mebane we're not included. ~ ! spent about 3 hours in an infea~ean ~ this ~~ty ~ ~~id be n~ lua a The Sage group st7~1 h these 4 fire departments protect a large p art of our recoMs, They were never returned as promised. !didn`t see butane sentence relating tD the !.suet and range of future service. Response times were not recorded far any fire deparlmerr~ Where were the areas of projected growth? 'there was na methodology used to determine new fire and rescue stations and 1 don't recall arty mention of a county wide fire education program except through the rite Marshal's office. Ideas of improving, efficiency, reducing costs or improving overall services were not mentioned either. 1 wonder why specific information that was not received from several departments. 1 wauid think that a consulting company would have naUFied the county and asked~for assistance. Why was this not gathered and wiry the caurdydid not assist in intervening to obtain this infarrnelfan. It helps us alt. 1 did not get a single briefing offer our 3 hour interview. Tile RFP asks for NFPA standards, OSHA regulations and ADA requirements were not referenced throughout: I• vivoutd expect at feast a reference to NFPA 1720. A study immersing into a caurrfy wide training #acility could have createfl a document bigger than this. The RFP also asks for identifying opportunities to assist the volunteer departments with Paperwork. We.cauld use That at a career departnierrt~atso. This is a county wide service and•we mutually help each ,other, consistency is key and 'should be across the board. Page 8 of the study discusses a meeting with the chief of Cairrboro and Chapel Hill fire departments, even fftougY,r this was not a primary focus of the study. 1 da not she anywhere thatthe study is just farthe volunteer departments. . Starling with page i 1, the quality of the study tacks suffiGrent grammatical and spelling cansideratian when persons wrth mare degrees than a tirermameter can not spell the name of one of the 100 counties carrectiy. The current apparatus fleet far each department is not fi the same formal; What type of calculation was used th wamantthe need of increasing everyone's loxes? On page 30, (Eftand) they mention that the fire deparimerrt can pnivide 3,50D gattons of water. 1 calculate 5,50D ' gallons according to (heir numbers and one is from a 500 gallon tanker. is ~ possible to have a 500 gaitan tanker per NFPA 1901? t dan'tthink so. - Page 37, they state that fire hydrants are nat:an option far ~rra. What are thane red derrrces standing at[ along Highway 70 in their district? Loak like fire hydrants to me. These water Producing devices have been installed for a caupte of years. • llll3/Zt)07 34 Page 45,.where is the picfrtre of the members residences? Page 48, the area That Carrbaro annexed is outside of New Hopes 5-mle distract which currently would recenre a class 10. We have an automatic aid contract wdh Chapel HiU providrrig Class 3 protection from them and Carrbaro has a.Ciass 4. . Page 51, if then: are areas that are 6 - 8 during miles from afire sTrrfion, it would seem reasonable to change the Primary fire department This is about custotraer service and getfing the quickest protection t7o the citizen of the county. Maybe the maps need to be revisrled. . Page 52, what needs to be clone fio get frre hydrants installed along Highway 54? White Cross. Orange Grave and Carrbaro can a116enefit from this ' Page 55. fourth paragraph, grammatical error ar sentence structure realty distracts the reader. Nat prafessianal at ail. Page 60, Map shows a fire station near St Mary's and Schley roads. Eno has proposed one for That location but ~ appears to be a tang ways from coming to fruition. . Page ti5, t]airyland and Highway 54 do not meet - Page 67, drtierent cymbals used on ditfetent maps, no 1.25 mile circle included. Page 70, Carrbara should be included in the last paragraph to make fire districts easier nn the departments and communications Page 74, where is the map? Page 77, Best idea of the whale study. cfissolve the Orange Caunfy Rescue Squad. It seems to be a canstarrt problem that 1 hope can 6e resolved soon. ' ' ' Page 79,1 do not believe that the South Orange rescue squad runs cut of 261 South Churton Street Page 89, t need fa educafsd an the IRV program. I don`t understand how it can save money sending a paramedic unit and an ambulairce back and forth to Duke hosp`rtat 5-10 times a day: EMS seetris to going through a lot of people by buminw~ the vol me of calls ttrisocounty i sge ec~nge and we need about 4• more ambulances per day to keep p Page 90, why do we not have enough ambulances? Line 25 Page 91, iE would seem reasahabte to place•an ambulance at about every fire station, parrticulariy the outlying districts.lsne'24 . page 92, line 2S include UNC campus Page 95, where are the numbers? # of inspections. # of violafions, ~ of plans reviewed. # of acceptance tests. budget, revenue, etc... We should also create a web page siiawing who Plans to Purchase what and when Page 96, whaf about the ficmdthe o~Eno that are Plannfig an building new stations in the nextfew years? Efiand, t-1'iltsborough, Chapel Hili, page 98, County support staff can help all departments like during the ladder testing. Page 99, Tine i 5, f•lillsboraugh was left cut, Efiand also has a large amount of fire hydrants clang Highway 70, The county could assist during the dry hydrant installations with the assistance of a backhae and buy the Pipe in bulk. lfiighway 54 doesn't go into Chatham County. Line 34 f believe they meant Alamance Page 100, What is a communications specialist? If we get 4 more, can we get same OFS channels mandored ' 1]11312047 ~5 during wortdng calls? Atl fire stations need computers fn heip hack fire calls with a d'~rect connection for viewing 911 corder • • Page 102, limes in seconds are needed on aq fire reports to make the 9i 1 center and the responding agency look better Pock betfer on their responses. . ~ escue?)ep'arhneat . 3f?177~ Mna~utStrceE CR7TGatDi+~LC 275117 (9.19)91&7349 mice ~ • (919)93,7r53~"] fax (919)BB3-,~34Z ce1T tcrabtree~fawnofcarrboroom - `~'be purest form of Fire Suppression is fhrongh Fire prevention and this aspect is tbE hardest to measure" Taws of Carrboro Web Site: http:l/www.townafcarrbam.arg . Pursuant to I~o~th. Carolina General Shatn~es, CbapYer 132, et.seq., this electmriic ~ message and any attachments beietn, as weIl as any electronic ma1-i.. message(s~ that map be seat in. response to it ~may~ be . considered public record. and. as such are subject to requests for review. _• ivi~i~aa~ ,~- D Gwen Harvey From: Andy Gates [cfdchief@mindspring.coml Sent: Wednesday, November 14.200710:03 AM Ta: Gwen Harvey Cc: Gwen Snowden; Mike Tapp; Brad Allison; bparkembfdt~hatmail.com; Dan Jones; DAVtD ODELL; JEFF BORLAND; Jeff Cabe; KEVIN BROOKS; PETER HALLENBECK; R. Nathan Huey; TOMMY HOLMES; Travis Crabtree; Troy Blalock; Andy Gates Subject: New Microsoft Wont Document response to request of recomendation far emergency services study Ms Harvey, ~ Vile appreciate your attendance and participation in out last meeting (Nov'7). A.s discussed in ~ the metal consensusfrom those in attendance was that the Sage Report was at •~'C that meeting g '~~ best incomplete and the summary from School of Government was an incorrect interpretation of the information that was included in the Sage Group report • The recommendation being made by the council is that there be' a retreat held similar to the one held appraxinoately 12 years ago in which. all of the parties involved in emergency services ce. At this event we would recommend that there be an outside facilitator to wexe sn attendan ~,~,v orchestrate and address the matters of p~~ ~~ ~~ Would be forwarded to the~~ets c~ this meeting there would be a summai.Y ~,1,• ~ office and the l3C~CC. At the present time•we do not have an EM director to implement any plan that might be surmised by another "Study." It is our feeling that we ate the organizations that are providing /the services anal the group is more likely to take ownership of a plan that has been thought ~~ through b~g the providers. Vile are not opposed to an outside opinion but considering the present ~J pLdr situation (]~M Directat)• and the amount of time and funds spent on this project •to date with ~~ little br na results we believe that this would be the best route at this time. ~~ n ~ o ~ We appreciate your considetatian of this alternate plan. V(Te all want what is best far our citizens ~~• C~a G~ and ate •v~illing to take those steps to achieve this goal. r~j~ G Sincerely, • .~ Chief Andy Gates . VP' Orange County Chief Council Association 36 11/14/2007 ~~~ ~ 3, t fi~~4~~C ' ~o44p lY 52 !c` 4 ~ ~r~4 iEni°t~~ ®~fi/Y47~ C~V/V / 7 ~(Y/GRV~N~.I~'~ a7~lT V/CG~7 FIRE/RESCUE STUDY RFP DISCUSSION WITH FIRE CHIEFS November 12, 2008 Discussion Goals: . 1. Develop joint understanding of study scope and process. 2. Receive input re: elements considered in the study; Scope of Work 3. Seek two volunteers to serve on.study work group. ® Interviewslreview of proposals ® Duties as otherwise assigned Why the reporE? e Define future cost ® Fiscal planning o Inventory ® Capabilities defined ® Do we need it at all? ® Is it used to find a way to do away with the volunteers? Confirm the BOCC understanding of the use of the report? Include these in RFP: m How to fie services to joint planning: growth management/water supplies . What is being done well? a How can we have greater efficiency? Technology use? 0 3 yr 0 5 yr o longer term horizon ® Establish goals for: o Standard of coverage o Response time, effectiveness of mutual aid o Accountability, including fiscal ® Snapshot of existing ® Planning map of milestones (process map) ® Metrics/benchmarked 38 Elements: • Make it working document • Prioritize elements and cost out to be most effective • Consider alternatives to consultant only re o Focus group with citizens o Grad students Process: • Check in points during reportlperiodically to ensure headed in right direction • Establish distribution list. • Trust • Transparent • Be sure all participants are aware of activities of BOCC • Reps from ES/Rescue History Not to Repeat Ensure information is new and valid • Took information out of stations • Information trivial ®. What was, not where we should go • III-stated purpose • Why created? • Use unclear Good Things about the Sage Report • Good attempt-bad result • A comparison for what is bad Next Steps: • Formulate draft RFP • Summary of sheets by next Thursday • Set standard meeting dates • No copies of report distributed • Who owned information? • Who was it to inform? • Flawed methodology • Objective selection • Not transparent • Quality'.lousy . • Not timely R view Committee Volunteers• • Travis (Municipal) ~ Lynwood (.Rural) Review Committee Alternates: • Jeff (Rural) ~ Kevin (Rural) Wayne (Rural) Dan (Municipal) 39 Components Where are we now? o Current station locations o ~ Current community protection level(s) o Current capabilities of aII system assets . ^ Facilities ® Equipment ® StafFing p Training ® Surge depth o Current calls for service workload p Fire/Rescue . e EMS ® Community Outreach and Public Education Law Enforcement ® Emergency Management and Disaster Planning Telecommunications ^ Fire Prevention and Investigation ® Training o Current funding mechanism(s) Where do we want to go? o Fully Integrated System o Partially-Integrated System o Hybrid System o Status Quo How do we~ get there? o Phased Action Plan o Immediate Needs o Long-Range Plan o Intermediate Plan Care ~ Serve ~ Survive c d a d '_ v 0 0 0 O ,.-, c~ 0 s L U a~ Q 0 a~i Z d- ~_ m c ~ o o ~,. Q O c ~ O L!J :F+ -~ O ~ ° ° a o a a o_ o _ ~ ~ ~ O d ~ r r f ~ ~ C a ca .c U a Z c ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ o ~ Z O i _ u~ c ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ u . ~- ~ ~ o c ~ _ ~- m .n ~ o ~ ~ m o U W U Z 1 - ,~ U U ~ U U c v ~ Q. ~ n. ~- ~ ~ (n . , (~ fl) f!1 . L C ~ ~ > 0 ~ Q a ~ ~ ~. . ~ O O O O O W W ~ W W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q Q Q <L A+~~.~ F ° ° o o o o_ a _ ~ N tip .r,. ~ i"~ ~ C G w a to ~ ~ _ . ~ ~ Q c i+ ~ N ~ U~ ~ . °'. O a o o ~ n as ~ ~ ~ t6 U v. ~ ~ o '''' ~ c ~ ~ o ~ ~ U ~ o v 0 L O ~ cB I ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ p u .~ ~ ~ c 1 °v ~ ~ U N ~ N p a°o o ~ i tU i.L, 0 ~ L N iy 40 41 0 O C7 ti') r L 0 E Q r- O p ..p CF c 0 p o. 0 0 o a ~ u? ~ ~ ~ ~ O O , l f) L~ t C)w O O M O O Ll7 I.f) C~ t,C) N ~ Lf) O r~ c- r ~ ~~ ~ .-. p U ~ ~ r >+ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ,N V O ~ ~ N fl1 LL1 L L ~ ~ ~~ 0 Q- m m N O N L 'y ~ ~' 0 ~ ~ W L ~ -~-• 0 R3 _ ~j~, } ,o ~ ~~ ~ t~ p ;p .~ ~ L ~-. Q. ~ ~ ~C ; C ~ ~ ~ ~ C = ~ cLa ~ U U - ~ ~ G L ~ ~ •v C ~ C ~ U o C :.: u- m X O M ~ ~ q`~ p U ~ ~6 U ,~ ' ~.~y ~~ dl cn ~ as C U ~ X O d7 N ( ~ ~ Y U ~ ..Q U p C ' ~ N cn ~ a~ ~ U m ~ ~ ~ p ~ r 0 O I` ~ fU ~ m ' N -U ~ y:.n Q o 'n, .U p [i o d. ~ ~ O U '~ fn 1 ~ fn ~ ~ C ~ n- ~_ -Q p ~ . fO ~ r= r ~ U N ~ fly ~ ~ Q- N V ~ O ~ U °~' ~~ U f6 _ T p N O d' ^' W _. o CL m -U p ~ 42 L Q 41 Q. .~ iT W ~.. C Q1 d! t0 C t~ A V C d! W W ° ° ° ti o o o °D O O O th 0 N u ') O r r i-~ 0 F" r ~."' W Q U ..f Q~ .~ ~t-~ C Q ~ W L v ~ O ~ O ~ ~ C t6 ~ ~ ~ '~ _ mo O Q t - - O , W U ~ ~ C ~G j ~ U CL U 43 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 44 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: 2"d 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 30'h 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 45 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 of 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. 46 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. 47 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 mafters were considered when the Baard 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 far Existing Electronic Document Management Svstem 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. 9. Chance 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 29`h minutes were included in the consent agenda and approved. 5. Public Hearings 48 a. Public Hearing on the Issuance of Alternative Financing for Capital Pro)ects and Equipment and Adoption of Resolution The Board considered conducting a public hearing on the proposed issuance of up to $33,617,000 in altemative financing for capital projects and equipment and adopting a resolution supporting an application to the Local Govemment 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 previausly determined to undertake certain capital projects, as further described below: project Approximate Amount To Be Financed Acquisition and equipping of County portion of Gateway Center, County office building, and library, and library development $25,000,000 Parks and open space projects $5,500,000 Affordable housing projects $1,400,000 Solid waste equipment $217,000 Pro a management informations stem $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. 49 ~1 Under the guidelines of the North Carolina focal 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 lT 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 /T 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 acost-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 aself- 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 50 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 /T FURTHER RESOLVED that all actions of the County's Finance Officer and other County representatives in filing an application with the LGG 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 adapt 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 5'h 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 afire/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. 51 --, ~' 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 Gounty 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: o 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 acid 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 52 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 maw 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 53 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 pertorm 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 pertarming 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 fvr 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? 54 0 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. 55 0 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 Oranc{e 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. 56 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 buildinglfacility 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 properly 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. 57 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 BOGC 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 bf 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. Gommissioner 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. 58 0 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 far Art would ensure a continued commitment to art in Orange Caunty. In North Carolina, there are Percent for Art programs in Asheville, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, and Mecklenburg Gounty. 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 alsa 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. 59 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. Re orts 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 Develapment 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 60 projects included the Orange Grove Road Extension and the Orange Grove Road pedestrian bridge. She said that there is legislation coming forward to allow fora 1/2-cent sales tax for transit. Commissioner Nelson left at 70;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 23`d 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 61 ~nnntp n! ®~ M" ~ • ra it sz xa ~ a ~'~~b Cnia~c County of Orange Department Of Asset Management And Purchasing Services Pamela K. Jones, Director September 4, 2009 RE: Request for Proposals Study To Create Overview Of Current Issues Relating To The Delivery Of Fire, Rescue And Emergency Medical Services In Orange County Study Phase 1 Proposal No. 5150 To Whom It May Concern: The Orange County, North Carolina, Board of County Commissioners is seeking qualified firms to develop an overview of current issues relating to the delivery of fire, rescue and emergency medical services in Orange County. We are seeking interested parties with the expertise to advise us as we take an initial status check of our service delivery system as well as development of a focused Request for Proposal for a comprehensive study. Currently Orange County is served by a network of paid and non-paid (volunteer) fire and rescue agencies. The Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) through this RFP is requesting; ® an analysis of the current system, ® a comparison of those results to established performance guidelines, such as those published by the National Fire Protection Association, ® a report card. of capabilities. ® Assistance in developing a focused, metered scope of work that will form the basis for a Request for Proposal to complete future phases of the study. The selected firm will be required to conduct two' public meetings to obtain input from the citizens of Orange County. In addition, the selected firm will be required to make a presentation of its findings and present the report to the Orange County Board of Commissioners at a regularly scheduled Board of Commissioners meeting. Costs associated with these public meetings shall be included in fee proposal. Submission of Proposals A. Please submit one (1) original, one (1) copy, and one digital copy (.pdf) of proposal. All proposals shall be sealed and marked "RFP # 5150, Study To Create Overview Of Current Issues Relating To The Delivery Of Fire, Rescue And Emergency Medical Services In Orange County Study Phase 1 " Sealed proposals will be received no later than 5:00 PM EST, on September 24, 2009, at the Office of the Orange County Purchasing Agent, 129 E King Street, PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278. Each bidder is responsible for determining that all addenda issued by the County has been received before submitting a proposal. 62 B. Proposals will not be accepted via fax machine or interest a-mail. C. Time is of the essence and any proposal or addenda pertaining thereto received after the announced time and date for submittal, whether by mail or otherwise, will be rejected. It is the sole responsibility of the firm for ensuring that their proposals are received by the Purchasing Department personnel before the deadline indicated above. There is nothing in this RFP that precludes the County from requesting additional information at any time during the procurement process from any firm. D. Nothing herein is intended to exclude any responsibilities or in anyway restrain or restrict competition. On the contrary, all responsible firms/individuals are encouraged to submit proposals. The County of Orange reserves the right to waive any formalities, to reject any and/or all proposals, and to accept any proposal which in its opinion may be in the best interest of the County. E. Any proposal submitted MUST include the proposal form which has been signed by an individual authorized to bind the offer. All proposals submitted without such signature may be deemed non-responsive. G. RFP Process: Firms are to submit written proposals which present the firm's qualifications and understanding of the work to be performed. The firm's proposal should be prepared simply and economically and should provide all the information which it considers pertinent to its proposal and qualifications for the project. Emphasis should be placed on completeness of services offered and clarity of content. H. Propriety Information: Trade secrets or proprietary information submitted by a bidder, offeror, or contractor in connection with a procurement transaction shall not be subject to the public disclosure under the Public Records Act. However, the bidder, offeror, or contractor must invoke the protection of this section prior to or upon submission of the data or other materials, and must identify the data on other materials to be protected and state the reasons why protection is necessary. Minority Bidders: The County of Orange encourages all businesses, including minority, women owned businesses to respond to all RFP's, IFB's, and RFQ's. J. Incurring Cost: Orange County is not liable for any cost incurred prior to the execution of the proposal or contract: 5. Disqualifications Orange County reserves the right to disqualify any firm upon convincing evidence of collusion with intent to defraud or to commit any other illegal practices on the part of the firm. Failure to comply with applicable state laws concerning insurance or bonding may also be grounds for disqualification. Orange County reserves the right to reject any and/or all proposals. 6. Inquiries: Questions concerning this RFP should be directed to: Orange County Asset Management and Purchasing Services Attention: David Cannel) 129 E King Street/PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: 919-245-2651 Fax: (919) 644-3001 Email: dcannellta'~co.oranae.nc.us (PREFERRED!) 63 All questions pertaining to this RFP must be submitted in writing no later than September 15, 2009. Only written questions will be considered formal. Any information given by telephone will 6e considered informal. Any questions that the County feels are pertinent to all proposers will be addressed as addendum to the RFP and will be sent to vendors as well as posted on the County website. Fax and a-mail messages will be treated as written questions. 7. Insurance: The Contractor to whom this contract is awarded shall secure and maintain, at his/her sole expense, commercial general liability insurance applicable to the work of this contract during the duration of the Contract. Contractor shall also maintain workers' compensation insurance providing statutory benefits during the duration of this contract. Satisfactory certificates of insurance shall be filed with the County prior to starting any work on the Contract. All insurance companies must be licensed to do business in the State of North Carolina. Insurer shall agree to provide notice to the County of Orange not less than 45 days before any change in coverage. The form and limits of such insurance, together with the underwriter thereof in each case, shall be acceptable to the County, but regardless of such acceptance, it shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to maintain adequate insurance coverage at all times. Failure of the Contractor to maintain adequate coverage shall not relieve him/her of any contractual responsibility or obligation. 8. Hold Harmless The successful proposal shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Orange County from all loss, liability, claims, actions damages, or expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising from bodily injury, including death or property damage, to any person or persons caused in whole or in part by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Contractor; any suits brought against the County for or on account of the use of patented appliances, products, or processes, or the infringement of any patent, trademark, copyright, or alleged negligence on the part of the Contractor. 9. Signing Proposals The County will prepare contracts for the successful firm using the name exactly as it appears in the proposal. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the proposer sign the proposal using the correct and complete legal name. 10. Award of Contract The award will be made to the Contractor who submits the proposal which is in the best interest of the County. Such evaluations will include the relevant experience of the firm, the capability of the firm, the cost of the project, and other factors deemed by the County to be in the best interest of the County. Orange County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals at its sole discretion or to waive any specific irregularities or formalities in order to accept a proposal deemed to be in the best interest of the County. The County shall have a period of ninety (90) days after the opening of the proposals in which to award the contract. 11. Selection Process 64 The selection process will be based on the responses to this Request for Proposal and any proposal review sessions. Orange County reserves the right to create a "shortlist" and to request and on site presentation by any and all respondents at the expense of the respondent. It is anticipated that the evaluation team will be made up of County Staff as well as representatives from local municipal and volunteer fire departments 12. Tentative Schedule A. RFP sent to Firms B. Written Questions due C. Answers to all firms questions D. Proposals due E. Evaluation period F. Anticipated Contract Award G. Project Completion 13. Submission Requirements September 4, 2009 September 15, 2009 Septermber 17, 2009 September 24, 2009 October 2009 Late October 2009 2009 No later than January, 2010 The firm's proposal should be organized so that the outline of the proposal generally follows the format of this request for proposal. The proposal shall cover the approach and the methods the firm intends to use in carrying out the study. Information requested by the County shall be shown below. Failure to adhere to this format respondent's opportunity for consideration. A. Introduction and Executive Summary labeled by section headings and numbered as or to address all items specified may affect a The following items shall be included in the Executive Summary: 1. Mission/Description of the proposing firm including line(s) of business. 2. Indicate the number of year in business. 3. A general discussion of the relevant experience. 4. A description of your general understanding of the project. 5. Mission/Description of Organization 6. Understanding of the project 7. Proposed methodology 8. Experience working with diverse stakeholders 9. A general discussion of the proposing firm's approach to the project. 10. A list of personnel performing work on this project and their qualifications. 11. A clear and concise response stating why you believe that your firm is the most qualified firm to perform this work, and any other information which may be helpful to the committee evaluating the proposal. 12. How your organization would involve and communicate to the project steering committee The purpose of the executive summary is to provide information about the proposing firm, as well as the firm's approach to the project. Specifically, the executive summary should be written in non-technical language that can be clearly understood by non-technical county officials. The section should be concise and should be present only information that is relevant to this project. B. Company Information Each respondent shall provide the following company information: 4 65 1. Firm's name and business address, including telephone and fax number, email address, website address. 2. The type of firm (individual, partnership, corporation, etc.) and list the names of all partners, principals, etc. 3. Year established. Include former firm name(s) and year(s) established, if applicable. 4. Organizational chart of the firm. 5. The name, title, address and telephone number of the firm's authorized negotiator for this project. The person identified must be empowered to make binding commitments for the firm and its subcontractors. C. Relevant Experience of the Firm The following items must be included in the relevant experience section: 1. Three projects of similar scope and size to the project described in this RFP that your firm has provided in the last three years. Please provide company name, address, city state, contact name and phone number of point of contact. The County prefers experience to be from other governmental agencies. D. Resources 1. Staff: A list of key staff members who will be assigned to this project. The information shall include resume, professional credentials, certificates, licenses, and level of qualifications that are necessary to perform this project. E. Other Requirements 1. Provide a complete time line detailing the implementation. 2. Information concerning any current violations and any ongoing litigation which may cause conflicts or affect the ability of the proposer to provide services. 3. Responsibility for Proposal Costs: The Contractor shall be responsible for all costs incurred in the preparation and submission of their proposal. 4. Any Exceptions/deviations to specifications shall be included on a separate page. 66 State of North Carolina County of Orange NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT Proposal Request No. 5150 being first duly sworn, deposes and says that: I. He/She is the of the proposer that has submitted the attached proposal; 2. He/She is fully informed respecting the preparation and contents of the attached proposal and of all pertinent circumstances respecting such proposal; 3. Such proposal is genuine and is not a collusive or sham proposal; 4. Neither the said proposer nor any of its officers, partners, owners, agents, representatives, employees or parties in interest, including this affiant, has in any way colluded, conspired, connived or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any other proposer firm or Person to submit a collusive or sham proposal in connection with the contract for which the attached proposal has been submitted or to refrain from proposing in connection with such contract, or has in any manner, directly or indirectly sought by agreement or collusion of communication or conference with any other proposer, firm or person to fix the price or prices in the attached proposal or of any other proposers, or to fix any overhead, profit or cost element of the proposal price of the proposal of any other proposer or to secure through collusion, conspiracy, connivance or unlawful agreement any advantage against the County of Orange or any person interested in the proposed contract; and 5. The price or prices quoted in the attached proposal are fair and proper and are not tainted by any collusion, conspiracy, connivance or unlawful agreement on the part of the proposer or any of its agents, representatives, owners, employees, or parties in interest, including this affiant. Signature Title Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me, This day of , 20 Notary Public My Commission Expires: 6 67 To Whom It May Concern: PROPOSAL FORM I have carefully examined the Request far Proposal and any other documents accompanying or make a part of this Request for Proposal. I hereby propose to furnish the services specified in the Request for Proposal for a lump sum fee in the amount of: ~$ ) I agree that my proposal will remain firm a period of up to 90 days in order to allow the County adequate time to evaluate the proposals. I certify that all information contained in this proposal is truthful to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further certify that I am duly authorized to submit this proposal on behalf of the firm as its act and deed and that the firm is ready, willing and able to perform if awarded the contract. It is distinctly understood that the County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals. NAME OF FIRM Federal Tax ID: Phone: AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Fax: NAME & TITLE, TYPED OR PRINTED MAILING ADDRESS Email: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE Notary Public My Commission expires: (SEAL) 7 ~oantP °~ ®~a k,r ! n `'p *~ R x~ 52 A A '~ '~ _ -`° Op~~ ~ I l~ey~wxn-~ a( t~vs4x Mr.~•~s•~ wr~d ~+~nc~ Svw~c~t ADDENDUM #1 September 21, 2009 RE: RFP NUMBER 5150; Study To Create Overview Of Current Issues Relating To The Delivery Of Fire, Rescue And Emergency Medical Services In Orange County Study Phase 1 68 To all Vendors: Modifications to bid documents for the above named rfp shall be made herein and shall be included in the bid amount. In order to better address the questions submitted the due date has been extended until 5:00 PM EST, on October 8, 2009. We anticipate issuance of addendum 2 which will address the questions on or before September 25, 2009 All other terms and conditions shall remain the same. A copy of this addendum shall be included with the bid submitted by your company. Please sign below signifying the receipt of this addendum and include it with your submittal: Company Name: By: Date Received: P.O. Box 8181 129 East King Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Telephones: Area Code 91 9 732-81 81 Fax: 919 644-3001 ADDENDUM 1, RFP 5150 -PAGE 1 69 ~n„ntP of ~e fWq " yP +~ ~ sa e ~'~ld Gn[o~`o Orange County Department of Asset Management and Purchasing Services ADDENDUM #2 September 24, 2009 RFP NUMBER 5150 Study To Create Overview Of Current Issues Relating To The Delivery Of Fire, Rescue And Emergency Medical Services In Orange County Study Phase 1 To all Vendors: Modifications to bid documents for the above named Request for Proposal are made as follows and shall be included in the proposed amount. The due date for the above mentioned RFP has been suspended indefinitely pending review and input of the committee and the Board of Commissioners. Once a new due date is established it will be announced through an addendum to RFP holders of record as of September 24, 2009; and advertised on the County website (www.co.oranae.nc.us/purchasing under Current Bids) All other terms and conditions shall remain the same. By: David E. Cannell, Purchasing Agent dcannell~a co.orange.nc.us ~ (919) 245-2651 A signed copy of this addendum shall be included with the bid submitted by your company Company Name: By: Date Received: P.O. Box 8181 129 East King Street Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Telephones: Area Code 919 732-8181 Fax: 919 644-3001