Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090910 APPROVED 10/6/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION September 10, 2009 7:00p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Emergency Services Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve adding another closed session item to the agenda — "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board," pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. County Regulation of Billboard Lighting County Attorney John Roberts said that this issue involves some outdoor advertising signs on the 1-40/1-85 corridor and that lighting is the issue. These signs are owned by Ben Lloyd. He said that Mr. Lloyd petitioned the County several years ago to restore lighting on these billboards and the petition was denied by the Board of Adjustment. There was a subsequent Board of Adjustment hearing on it, and the BOA upheld the denial. The sign company appealed to the Superior Court. At some point during the appeal, the sign company voluntarily dismissed the appeal and did not, within a one-year period, re-file the appeal, and the case died in Superior Court. What is left is the Board of Adjustment's decision that lighting should be denied. There has been some case law decided since that time and the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and the Supreme Court of North Carolina have ruled in a case of Lamar OCI vs. Stanley County Board of Adjustment that a county ordinance that makes illegal an action that the Department of Transportation (DOT) rules to make legal is preempted by the DOT rules. That is part of what applies to this situation. This is a complex issue and involves numerous arguments on both sides. He thinks that there are two options for the Board of County Commissioners to take. One is to hold that this matter has been adjudicated and is disposed of. The Board of Adjustment has the force of the law. The other option is amending the applicable portion of the County Zoning Ordinance to reflect what DOT's rules say. John Roberts said that the difference in the DOT rules and the Orange County ordinance is that DOT says if the lighting was in the past and was depowered then it can be powered again; Orange County's ordinance says that if lighting is depowered then it cannot be powered again. Craig Benedict said that this has been going on since 2002. When he came to Orange County in 1999, the Planning Department was asked to do an inventory of all billboards along 1- 85/1-40 in Orange County. He said that when Carolina Advertising was leasing billboards from Mr. Lloyd, the signs were unlit. It was determined that since the signs were unlit, that letting them be lit would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. He said that in cases where DOT has rules, they probably preempt local zoning, but where DOT rules are silent, then Orange County zoning may take effect. DOT is silent on the issue of signs not being lit for more than 180 days, but it is in Orange County's rules. Commissioner Yuhasz asked that if the County Commissioners went with Option 2 —to bring Orange County's regulations into compliance with the DOT regulations — and if this would allow any new billboards and Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Hemminger asked for an explanation of why the signs cannot be lit and Craig Benedict said that the County has an outdoor lighting ordinance and new permitted lights in the major transportation corridor cannot have lit signs. Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of the chart (Matrix of highway billboards). Craig Benedict said that, of the 31 signs, Orange County and DOT were consistent on 27 of those. On four of the sites, there is a dispute about whether DOT thought that the signs could be relit and whether Orange County thought that they were unlit for more than 180 days. Mr. Lloyd's signs are #'s 15 and 16. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important not to single out Mr. Lloyd. He said that it seems like this is not in the context of why the County did what it did originally with billboards. He made reference to a handout from Durham City in reference to billboards and said that this was a 40-page document and everything after page 8 is about digital signs. He made reference to page 4 about billboards in Durham. He would like to see Orange County's ordinance and have a better understanding of why Orange County did what it did before making a change. He hopes that the owners of the four signs agree to conform to the County's standards, regardless of DOT's standards. He would like to be fair to Mr. Lloyd, but he would also like to be cautious in making a decision. Commissioner Yuhasz said that caution is in order but he does not think this is about whether Orange County lighting standards should apply to billboards. He said that the real question is whether or not any Orange County standards can apply to existing billboards that come under DOT's purview as a result of the State of North Carolina's agreement with the federal government. He said that the argument is that Orange County regulations are preempted. He said that the County should acknowledge that it will comply with the state and federal regulations. He said that it will have no affect on the current billboards and the number in the County. He said that this is only looking at four billboards. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to direct Planning staff to prepare an amendment to the applicable portion of the County's zoning ordinance to eliminate certain types of regulation of lighting of billboards where the regulation is in conflict with State or Federal Law. This would not exempt all billboards from regulation, nor would it open the door for more billboards to be erected. It would, however, bring Orange County's ordinance into compliance with existing State and/or Federal Law. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would still like more information and he thinks that it is reasonable to request that if someone is going to light a billboard and the County does have a legal standing to oppose it, that the County can at least try and negotiate that the applicant conform to Orange County's lighting standards. He said that DOT's standards are not as progressive as Orange County's standards. He does not want to apologize for being more progressive. He thinks that the Board needs to understand how the County got here, regardless of this situation. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to add a friendly amendment to discuss with Ben Lloyd and others that have lighted billboards regarding conforming with Orange County standards and that staff bring back information about Orange County's ordinance. Commissioner Yuhasz accepted the amendment. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7:33 PM. The County Commissioners asked for more information on the digital signs. Commissioner Jacobs restated his amendment, which was to work with Mr. Lloyd to encourage him to put in lighting that conforms to Orange County's lighting standard and that the Board be presented with the major transportation corridor ordinance and the reasoning behind the approach to billboards. VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Nelson) A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that when the result comes back to the Board, that the Board also get information in writing from NCDOT concerning the digital lighting of signs and how the County's system would fit into an ordinance amendment, and whether any other loopholes need to be closed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Follow-up with Interim Manager Frank Clifton made this presentation to the Board. He also provided a written document which is attached and hereby made a part of these minutes. September 10, 2009 —Work Session Presentation Frank W. Clifton, Jr— Interim County Manager To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Ms. Foushee, Chair Mr. Nelson, Vice Chair Mr. Jacobs, Commissioner Ms. Gordon, Commissioner Ms. Pelissier, Commissioner Ms. Hemminger, Commissioner Mr. Yuhasz, Commissioner This presentation follows the guidance provided and established by the County Commission upon my initial employment as assignments. Briefly summarized below in respective order are the items addressed: I. Observe county government operations and develop a detailed summary of `potential' items to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. II. Pursue a review and propose revisions to the County's current "Agenda Development Process". III. Look closely at organizational efficiencies and effectiveness. IV. Identify where opportunities exist to expand upon and improve the County's communication efforts at all levels. V. Take a close look at the staffing levels in the manager's office with regards to existing and future challenges. VI. Look closely at reorganization options created by the potential retirements resulting from the County's incentive program. VII. Other duties as assigned (or as recognized by myself) needing management oversight, input or direction. Overview Frank Clifton said that several of these items have some overlap and impact other functions within the County's operating structures. When reviewing the information as presented, the Board will see references between issues and functions highlighting expected outcomes or impacts. Where impacts are obvious, they may not have been addressed. He said all of this input is based on his professional experience, direct exposure as manager of two other NC Counties and regular interaction with numerous county managers and staff in other counties over a ten year plus period in NC. He also called upon past experience as a city manager in other jurisdictions along with some experience in private sector areas including manufacturing and land development activities. Frank Clifton said that one tenet to keep in mind is there is "NO" one-size fits all perfect method to do anything or everything. Any effort applied in delivering services must be customized to local conditions BUT valuable lessons are to be learned from other applications elsewhere. There is seldom an issue faced by local government "anywhere" that has not been dealt with "elsewhere". Approach and Methodology Frank Clifton said that it would have been easy for him to make a list of items for the Board and the next manager to address and walk away saying the task is done. He said he approached these tasks with two objectives. First, he said he felt it important to give the BOCC his best effort responding to their directives. Second, regardless of who the next manager is, they will have some personalized perspective of what that person will face and can use this input to best judge what type of individual will be best suited and capable of addressing these issues with some degree of success. Finally, "timing", "resources", "organizational response" and "persistence" will be the elements most impacting upon successful change AND improvements will be incremental. (Slay one dragon at a time!) He said his approach beyond addressing those challenges and opportunities that were readily available and obvious, was to attempt to reach out to every department in an effort to gain a better understanding of why "things are the way they are". In most cases, department heads and staff were fairly open about their operations. Many are proud of what they do and very guarded about how they do it. Ms. Blackmon began a process of transitioning the organization from that developed by Mr. Link over his 18 years as manager to more closely align with today's challenges and "resource limitations". He said he spent time talking with Ms. Blackmon and Mr. Link to gain a personalized perspective of their analysis of how the organization functions and could function better. Both provided valuable insight and similar perspectives on factors that critically impact upon county operations, and the ability of the organization to plan for and respond to change. He has known both of these individuals for a number of years and value their opinions and experience. However, every manager approaches similar situations from varying perspective seeking similar measures of success. Again, no one-size fits all. Summary: Frank Clifton said each of the items assigned had been addressed to some extent. Certainly, there are items that are not listed that could have been presented. Local government like any organization should have a goal to pursue "continuous improvement". Whether resources permit or not, it is prudent to know there are opportunities to be more efficient, but more importantly more effective. In the end, effectiveness may be somewhat subjective depending upon measurements employed, except that those paying for the services will always expect quality at a reasonable cost. He said that change that the BOCC does not support if pursued by staff will fail. Support by the BOCC does not have to be unanimous but the BOCC consensus must be consistent or implementation of change will be deterred accordingly. Organization staff has a history of attempting to give every member of the BOCC what that individual wants. Sometimes that occurs contrary to the BOCC consensus or knowledge. I. Observe county government operations and develop a detailed summary of `potential' items to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. Frank Clifton said that he took this on in a broad sense and he developed an extensive list of different issues. He said that one tenet to keep in mind is that there is "NO" one-size fits all perfect method to do anything or everything, it is just meant to say that the observations are basic and not absolute. Following is the summary for this item. SUMMARY These observations are basic and not to be taken as absolutes. Further study and analysis could be appropriate. None of recommendations is to be taken as overtly "critical" of existing practices or personnel in a sense of "highlighting" weaknesses. Each comment is an attempt to ask four basic questions: (1) Why are we doing this or that in a certain manner? (2) Are there contributing factors that prevent or prohibit other options? (3) When was the last time these issues were addressed, reviewed or modified? (4) Is there a better, more effective and/or efficient approach to be considered? He said that on the next agenda, there is a recommendation to initiate the consolidation of Tax Administration, Tax Assessment, and Land Records under the direction of the Tax Administrator. This is consistent with the retirements that are occurring there. There will be some shifting of responsibilities and not removal of positions. II. Pursue a review and propose revisions to the County's current "Agenda Development Process". There have been some steps initiated that will help this process. Staff is already working on those items. III. Look closely at organizational efficiencies and effectiveness. He said that the County should never think that it is the best that it can be. He said that the Board of County Commissioners creates some significant demands and then talks about leaving staff positions open. He said that he is looking at every vacant position and will weigh each one. He said that there are lots of other technologies that the County could be using but it is not, such as GPS units in EMS vehicles. There is also a huge amount of office space that the County is using to store historic records. Another issue is the long-term health coverage for employees, which is a great benefit, but it is very expensive. He said that the goal should be for employees to be more healthy and preventative in nature. IV. Identify where opportunities exist to expand upon and improve the County's communication efforts at all levels. The problem here is reaching the public on a regular basis with a common tool that everyone knows about. The key is to find someone with technical skills that can be taught about County government. VI. Look closely at reorganization options created by the potential retirements resulting from the County's incentive program. This is being done on a regular basis. Regarding volunteer boards, he said that these all have to have staff support and a huge amount of staff time. He said that there are some boards that need to be sunset because there is some duplication. He suggested shifting some of the functions of volunteer boards to a non-profit status so that it does not take up staff time. He said that Orange County has a lot of dedicated employees and they do not always communicate like they should between departments. He said that when there is an impact on another department, those impacts need to be explored. VII. Other duties as assigned (or as recognized by myself) needing management oversight, input or direction. Frank Clifton said that there is a concept within Orange County government called the Orange County "way". He said that there is Board micromanagement. He said that staff thinks they know what the Board likes and dislikes enough, and sometimes the options presented to the Board are based on that rather than what is right or wrong. He thinks that sometimes the Board does not hear what it needs to hear. His impression is that staff holds things back because they are afraid that if they lay too many options out on the table that there will be more work involved. He said that the Board of County Commissioners has to step up and make a decision that may not be easy, but at least there was a decision. He said that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does a lot and this County is into services that other counties have not even thought of. Commissioner Pelissier thanked Frank Clifton for the report. She said that this will help in designing the upcoming retreat. She asked how the County Commissioners could give feedback since he is just an interim Manager and since there is so much information in this report. Frank Clifton said that, as an interim, the important issues he is addressing or will address while he is here can be used as a blueprint for the new Manager. He said that some issues will take years and may require legislative action. He said that, as far as feedback, the Board of County Commissioners sometimes needs to step out of the way and let the Manager do his job. He wants to know the areas in which the County Commissioners want to be more involved, but there are areas of business where the County Commissioners should not be involved. He said that the more the Board involves itself, the less the Manager is in charge. Commissioner Nelson echoed Commissioner Pelissier's comments about the value of this document. He wholeheartedly seconded the comments about micromanagement. He said that he has faith in Frank Clifton's judgment about reorganization and if there is policy involved he hopes that staff will come back and touch base with the County Commissioners. Regarding Human Rights and Relations, he said that it would be instructive for new Commissioners to hear how that department evolved and the lawsuit that stripped the department of its mission and to talk about whether this department is necessary. Commissioner Nelson asked about recommendations for the large number of advisory boards. Frank Clifton said that a lot of them are task forces that are finished with their work and a letter of thank you could be sent to the members. He suggested that, when staffing boards and commissions, that the membership should be turned over and the provisions sunset or consolidated. Chair Foushee said that the issue of boards and commissions should be discussed in more depth. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for more detail on the areas that could spin off into independent agencies. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to how to use this report and suggested making a list of direction given in the past, such as central permitting and a consistent sense of identity of County departments, etc., and bringing it back to make sure that the Board is still on board with the issues. Some items have already been blessed by the Board of County Commissioners, but are not happening due to technical issues. He made reference to the emergency services study and said that the Board is still in the dark about where this is. He said that this has been dragging on for years and he wants some concrete information about this. Frank Clifton said that the RFP is out for consultants and Commissioner Jacobs asked to see a copy of this. Commissioner Jacobs said that this was handled poorly before and he does not want to make the same mistake twice. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to economic development and said that this needs to be brought to the table and there needs to be a plan. Commissioner Gordon thanked Frank Clifton for this thorough report. She said that the Board needs to be clear about its goals and priorities and adopt them. Regarding Emergency Services, she said that she is confident that the Board approved correcting the addressing system, and this has not been done. Also, the 911 system has gone down twice lately and this is a concern. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the County Commissioners being involved and said that the way it should work is that the Board should be clear about priorities and set the priorities, and then the staff should carry them out. She thinks that one reason the County Commissioners get too involved is that they either do not get what they thought they were going to get, or somehow it is not complete and they try to fix it. This is not how it should work. Frank Clifton said that it is not that the Board should not be involved, but it ought to be as a Board and not as individual members. Regarding the 911 service, Frank Clifton said the most recent incident involved someone accidentally cutting the wires with a backhoe. Commissioner Gordon made reference to things that the Board needs to discuss and said that she agrees with most of the suggestions made by Mr. Clifton regarding reorganization. She asked Frank Clifton to keep the Board up to date about retirements and reorganization. She asked him to flag things that need to come up soon, such as freeing up valuable office space that is currently used for storage. She said that the Board of Elections move is going to be using 4500 square feet of office space for storage. While this is an acceptable solution for now, it should be understood that as storage space is made available elsewhere, we should think about reassigning the use of this space for offices rather than storage. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the budget process and said that the County Commissioners have tried to spread out the budget process, but there is still a small timeframe to make major budget decisions. She suggested moving the process back so that the Board does not get overloaded. Frank Clifton said that it is important for staff to do the homework and bring to the Board of County Commissioners the options for a budget. He thinks that in the end the County Commissioners have to make the decisions. Commissioner Gordon issued a memorandum to enter into the record: "All, This is a heads-up to let you know that the DCHC MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) is beginning a discussion of expanding the Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) for the MPO. The staff is only recommending a limited expansion at this time, with further consideration of expansion after the 2010 census. The areas recommended for consideration of expansion at this time are "Area 1" in Orange County, along the 1-85 corridor toward Mebane and the Burlington-Graham MPO. The other area is "Area 5" in Chatham County. I will bring a copy of the relevant portion of the map to the meeting tonight. 1 have asked Karen Lincoln to provide you complete information as part of her monthly report on the TAC activities, and that should include the complete map. Upon a motion by me (seconded by the representative from Chatham County), the TAC has, upon a unanimous vote, directed the staff to come back to the October TAC meeting with more information including the population in the areas for potential expansion, a more complete explanation of the financial implications, and the implications for the TAC by-laws. 1 made the motion to defer action until the next meeting and to bring back more information because ! wanted the BOCC and the county staff to have some time before the TAC took action. The action that the TAC will consider taking in October is to initiate the process to expand the DCHC MPO Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) in western Orange County along the 1-85/1-40 corridor (area #1) and in northeastern Chatham County to the Haw River and US 64 (area #5). This action will enable the staff to do the work to initiate the process. The decision on whether to expand the MAB or not will come later. I recommend that the BOCC receive the report on this matter from Karen Lincoln very soon and direct the staff to give the BOCC the additional information that the Board would like to have, along with a timeline for receiving that information. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. Regards, Alice" 3. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to go into closed session at 8:54 PM for the purpose of: "To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6); and "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board," pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to reconvene into regular session at 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board