Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-16-2010 7 APPROVED 4/20/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING March 16, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Staff asked that the Board defer item 4-b2 — Carrboro Planning Board Reappointment. Chair Foushee reviewed the items at the County Commissioners' places. There was additional information for: - Item 7-a — Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Consensus Principles - Item 7-b — Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center: Inter-Local Agreement - Item 8-d- 2009 Revaluation Report - Item 11-b — Equalization and Review Board — New Appointments PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Census 2010 Presentation The Board received a presentation on the 2010 Census. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri made a PowerPoint presentation. 7 Orange County Board of County Commissioners Meeting March 16, 2010 Why Do We Take the Census? •It is required by law and mandated by The U.S. Constitution. Helps paint a portrait of America, an evolution over the past 10-years and what's needed for the next decade. State population totals must be submitted to the President by December 31, 2010. What Happens if You Don't Respond? •The law makes it a crime not to respond and can carry a fine up to $5,000. •However, this is a last resort and the Census Bureau prefers to encourage response by explaining its importance. How is it Used? •Determines congressional seats. •Defines where jobs and job programs are needed. •Helps potential homeowners research property values and other demographic information. •Corporations use data for market research to determine locations for food stores, pharmacies and other services. How is it Used (Cont.)? •Census data are used to distribute over$400 billion in federal funds to local, state and tribal governments each year. —Grants to educational agencies (school districts) —Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (food grants) —Head Start programs —Public transportation —Road rehabilitation and construction —Programs for the elderly —Emergency food and shelter —And more! Will the 2010 Census be the same as 2000? No, there are important changes: •2010 Census will be short form only-just 10 questions (Long form is now the American Community Survey). •13 million bilingual questionnaires (English/Spanish). 7 Questionnaire items Name •Relationship to owner •Gender •Age •Date of birth •Race •Telephone number Owns or rents •Number of people living in home •How long have people resided in the home Final Response Rates 2000 Census •Nation 72% •North Carolina 66% •Alamance County 69% Caswell County 60% •Durham County 70% Orange County 70% •Person County 66% •Wake County 73% Orange County Population —1990 US Census: 93,851 —2000 US Census: 115,531 —2010 OC Planning Estimate: 130,000-142,000* Census Guiding Principles: •It's Safe •It's Important •It's Easy The Census is Safe •Answers are protected by law. •Records are not shared with anyone. Not even the President of the United Sates can access individual responses. •Census workers must pass security and employment reference checks. •Census Bureau employees are subject to a $250,000 fine and/or a 5-year prison term. The Census is Important 7 •Data is used to apportion the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. •Appropriate $400 billion in federal funds to states and communities each year. •Redistricting of state legislatures and city councils, and voting districts. The Census is Easy Questionnaires reaching Orange County mailboxes right now (March 2010) •Short Form — 10 Questions, 10 minutes Bilingual Mail Forms (English/Spanish) The Easiest Way to Respond is to: •Complete the form as soon as it arrives; and •Return it in the postage-paid return envelope. Head of household should complete questionnaire for everyone living in the residence on April 1, 2010. Non-Response Follow-Up •May—July 2010, Census workers (Enumerators) must go door-to-door if necessary to collect data. •This task is very expensive. —$85 million is saved for every 1% increase in mail participation. —$60-$70 dollars saved for each form returned by mail. Enumerator Practices •Carry Black Bag with "U.S. Census Bureau" on side of bag •Wear white badge red and blue lettering with no picture •Wear Emergency Contact Card with badge that provides numbers for key contacts •Provide confidentiality Statement •Provide additional identification (if requested) •Allow calling of supervisor or census office •Adhere to confidentiality requirements •Will not use a Handheld Computer Questionnaire Assistance Centers (QAC) •Local Centers will be available 3/19-4/19 to assist those unable to read or understand the form. •Centers will be fully staffed. •Language Assistance Guides will be available in 59 languages at all Centers. •Two Centers in Orange County: Be Counted Sites (Open 3/19-4/19) Places where people can go to complete a questionnaire if they did not receive one at their residence or were omitted from the questionnaire returned by their household. •Four (4) Be Counted Sites in Orange County: 7 Please join me in taking 10-minutes to complete and return your census form. Thank you. b. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY 2008-09 The Board received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. Financial Services Director Clarence Grier made a PowerPoint presentation. ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT JUNE 30, 2009 Board of County Commissioners March 16, 2010 FISCAL HIGHLIGHTS •General Fund Activity •Fund Balance Position •Debt Position •Solid Waste Landfill Fund •SportsPlex Enterprise Fund •Single Audit and Grants •Audit Results •Future Financial Challenges GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND TRANSFERS •REVENUES, TRANSFERS AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES TOTAL $177.8 MILLION •INCREASE OF 1.8% OVER 2008 •LEADING SOURCES OF REVENUE Property Taxes $ 127.8 million 73.0% Sales Taxes $ 18.1 million 10.4% Intergovernmental $ 18.3 million 10.5% Charges for Services $ 8.8 million 5.1% PROPERTY TAXES ■ASSESSED VALUE $12.8 BILLION 2009 ■INCREASE OF 1.9% OVER 2008 •99.75% OF TOTAL COLLECTIONS TO ADJUSTED LEVY ■CONTINUES TO BE ONE OF THE STATE'S BEST 7 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS ■EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS TOTALED $184.1 MILLION ■INCREASE OF 7.6% OVER 2008 ■LEADING EXPENDITURES INCLUDE EDUCATION $64.7 million 35.2% HUMAN SERVICES 35.8 million 19.4% PUBLIC SAFETY 16.8 million 9.1% DEBT SERVICE 26.2 million 14.2% $92.7 MILLION GENERAL FUND DOLLARS FOR EDUCATION 50.4% of EXPENDITURES •Current Expense $ 64.7 million •Capital $ 8.3 million •Debt Service $ 19.7 million FUND BALANCE POSITION ■$18.9 Million Undesignated as of 6/30/2009 •Undesignated Fund Balance down $4.8 Million. •Unreserved Fund Balance is 11.4% of 2009 Expenditures and Transfers. Undesignated Fund Balance 10.4% of 2009 Expenditures and Transfers •Exceeds LGC 8% Recommended Minimum •Decline due to transfers for Capital Needs Undesignated Fund Balance As A Percentage of General Fund Expenditures Dollar Amount of General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance Shown in Millions of Dollars DEBT POSITION ■OUTSTANDING GENERAL FUND DEBT AT 6/30/09 $236.8 MILLION ■NET INCREASE IN DEBT OF $18.8 MILLION .(NEW DEBT $39.3, $20.5 RETIRED) ■DEBT EVIDENCED BY BONDS $121.4 MILLION ALTERNATIVE $113.0 MILLION CAPITAL LEASES $ 2.4 MILLION DEBT POLICY PARAMETERS •Debt Will Not Exceed 3% of Assessed Value ➢ Actual Debt = 1.86% 7 •Debt Service Payments Will Not Exceed 15% of General Fund Expenditures and Transfers ➢ Actual Pymts = 14.2% COUNTY AND SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Solid Waste Enterprise Fund •TOTAL REVENUES OF $8.6 MILLION •TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF $10.3 MILLION .$ .1.7 MILLION REVENUES UNDER EXPENDITURES .CASH AND INVESTMENTS OF $9.2 MILLION •CURRENT LIABILITIES OF $1.6 MILLION •SOUND FINANCIAL CONDITION SPORTSPLEX •Net Assets as of June 30, 2009 totaled $672,397 •Increase of $220,555 in net assets •Operating Revenue increased $69,384 •Operating loss increased $199,332 (Prior Year was ($337,632). •Audit Letter Recommended Improvements in Accounting Procedures is a return comment from the previous fiscal year. SINGLE AUDIT AND GRANTS ■$127.9 MILLION FEDERAL AND STATE GRANT FUNDS .HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FUNDS TOTAL $103 MILLION .HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUNDS $5.0 MILLION ■SINGLE AUDIT COVERS BOTH FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AUDIT RESULTS ■"Unqualified Opinion" (GOOD) •Successful audit process •Continued Implementation of New GASB Requirements •Auditors Performed Additional SAS Requirements •Sound Financial Policies and Procedures •Findings, Recommendations And Responses. FUTURE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS .Debt Issuance for Remaining Parks and Open Space Bonds, Elementary 11, Efland Sewer, Tax System. .Additional General Fund Balance Appropriation needed for Capital Project Funds .Continue Searching For New Revenue Options .More Consideration to Grant Accountant and Internal Audit Function .Consideration of ways to reduce future OPEB liability. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 157 and a concern about the findings. She asked for an explanation of material weaknesses that were identified. She said that there 7 were a lot of material weaknesses and significant deficiencies and she does not remember seeing this before. Clarence Grier said that there were some issues that were not resolved from the previous audit that were carried forward such as the Sportsplex. These required some adjustments by the auditor. He said that the auditor's findings have changed over the last few years. He said that there were some representations that were not where they were supposed to be at the time and some adjustments had to be made. Frank Clifton said that this is the County's standing as of June 30, 2009 and there were nine repetitive comments from 2008-09. There has been a change of staffing in several areas also. He said that he has had conversations with staff about these deficiencies. He said that these are not significant issues but a lack of follow-up or accountability. There are some reporting issues. He said that Orange County has been successful in receiving grant funds, but they are rolled in the general fund and are not tracked appropriately. He said that his primary concern is that Orange County needs to have a Grants Compliance position or an auditor on board for reporting purposes. Commissioner Gordon asked why the audit was so late. She wanted to know if the Local Government Commission had asked any questions about the audit. She also wanted to know how the audit affected approval of the Carrboro Arts Wing. Frank Clifton said that the delay in the audit report is unacceptable. He said that those audit firms that solicit business get a lot of business and he said that the audit firm did not deliver the product on time. He said that the audit firm has not talked to him since the first day they came to do the audit and he will be soliciting other firms for the next audit. Clarence Grier said that he went to the LGC to get funding for the arts wing, but the funding was delayed. He does not anticipate any problems or concerns. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks that 2008-09 was the period of time when the County was doing the renovations to the Sportsplex and it was supposed to adversely affect the revenues. He said that this should be a one-time impact. Frank Clifton said that he would become more aware as they go forward. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes for February 9, 11, 18 and 19, 2010 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments (1) Carrboro Board of Adjustment— Reappointment The Board reappointed John Gant to the Transition Area position of the Carrboro Board of Adjustment to a term ending February 28, 2013. (2) Carrboro Planning Board — Reappointment This item was deferred. c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 48 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds. d. NC Department of Correction Grant Application and CJPP Continuation Agreement The Board authorized the Manager to sign the application and staff to submit the grant application; authorized staff, if the County is awarded the grant, to negotiate an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Corrections for the CJPP grant funds, subject to review by the 7 by the County Attorney, and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement; and authorized staff to receive the CJPP grant funds and to proceed with an appropriate budget amendment to reflect receipt of the funds; and authorized staff to enter into a continuation agreement with Freedom House Recovery Center contingent upon receipt of CJPP grant funds in the amount requested or in an amount which would be modified in direct proportion to the amount actually received, and authorized the Manager to sign the agreement. e. Lease Renewal — High Rock Solid Waste Convenience Center The Board approved the lease renewal for the period of July 27, 2010 through July 26, 2015 at a monthly cost based on the escalator clause of the initial lease and authorized the Chair to sign the renewal agreement on behalf of the Board. f. NC State Firemen's and Rescue Squad Annual Certification Roster The Board approved the certification requirements fro the life safety branch manager and staff to participate in the North Carolina State Firemen's Association for the year 2010 and authorized the Chair to sign. Second Reading: South Orange Rescue Squad, Inc. Emergency Services Franchise Ordinance The Board granted on Second Reading a franchise by ordinance for five year terms to South Orange Rescue Squad, In. for Emergency Medical Basic Life Support and Rescue Services; authorized the Chair to sign the Franchise Ordinance; directed staff to discuss and enter into an Operations Agreement with South Orange Rescue Squad within 90 days that identifies the subcategories under which SORS will be permitted to operate the Emergency Medical Basic Life Support and Rescue Services Franchise based on the needs of the County and the capacity and capabilities of SORS as well as to provide for the Daily operational functions of SORS as it works within the Orange County Emergency Services System; and after the Emergency Services Director negotiates the Operations Agreement with SORS, authorize the County Manager to sign the Agreement subject to review by the County Attorney or his staff. The granting of the Franchise Ordinance is conditional upon successful completion of the Operations Agreement within 90 days of acceptance of the Franchise Ordinance by the SORS. h. Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budget Amendment #8 The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2009-10 for Department of Social Services, Library Services, Conservation Easements Capital Project Ordinance, and Technical Amendment. i. Retirement Incentive Program The Board approved the offering of an additional Retirement Incentive Program for FY 09-10 to reduce the number of positions in the County prior to July 1, 2010 for employees who have been employed by Orange County for 10 or more years and are eligible to retire under the NC Local Governmental Employees Retirement System. L Boards/Commissions/Task Forces to be Dissolved The Board approved the dissolved list of boards, commissions, and task forces which are no longer active because their charge has been completed. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Items Removed From Consent Agenda - NONE 6. Public Hearings a. North Carolina Community Transportation Program (CTP) Administrative and Capital Grant Application for FY 2010/2011 7 The Board conducted an annual public hearing on the North Carolina Community Transportation Program grant application by Orange Public Transportation for FY 2010-2011, and considered approving the grant application that includes adopting a resolution authorizing the applicant to enter into an agreement with North Carolina Department of Transportation, and authorizing the County Attorney to complete the necessary certifications and assurances and authorizing the Chair to sign. Department on Aging and Transportation Director Jerry Passmore said that this is part of the Transportation Division and this contributes to grant fees. This item requires a public hearing. One public hearing notice was posted in English and one in Spanish. The total amount of the request is $395,025. This is broken down into administrative funds of $185,525 and capital items for light transit buses (two) of $209,500. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminge, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2010-2011 in the total amount of $395,025 with local match of $48,779 (acceptance of the grant will be subject to FY 2010-11 budget considerations); and authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program resolution and annual certified statements of participation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM RESOLUTION Section 5311 FY 2011 RESOLUTION Applicant seeking permission to apply for Community Transportation Program funding, enter into agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation, provide the necessary assurances and the required local match. A motion was made by (Board Member's Name) and seconded by (Board Member's Name orN/A,if not required) for the adoption of the following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted. WHEREAS, Article 2B of Chapter 136 of the North Carolina General Statutes and the Governor of North Carolina have designated the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as the agency responsible for administering federal and state public transportation funds; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation will apply for a grant from the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and receives funds from the North Carolina General Assembly to provide assistance for rural public transportation projects; and 7 WHEREAS, the purpose of these transportation funds is to provide grant monies to local agencies for the provision of rural public transportation services consistent with the policy requirements for planning, community and agency involvement, service design, service alternatives, training and conference participation, reporting and other requirements (drug and alcohol testing policy and program, disadvantaged business enterprise program, and fully allocated costs analysis); and WHEREAS, (Legal Name of Applicant) hereby assures and certifies that it will comply with the federal and state statutes, regulations, executive orders, Section 5333 (b) Warranty, and all administrative requirements related to the applications made to and grants received from the Federal Transit Administration, as well as the provisions of Section 1001 of Title 18, U. S. C. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the (Authorized Official's Title)* Of (Name of Applicant's Governing Body) is hereby authorized to submit a grant application for federal and state funding, provide the required local match , make the necessary assurances and certifications and be empowered to enter into an agreement, with the NCDOT to provide rural public transportation services. I (Certifying Officials Name)* (Certifying Officials Title) do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the minutes of a meeting of the (Name of Applicant's Governing Board) duly held on the day of , 2010. Signature of Certifying Official *Note that the authorized official,certifying official,and notary public should be three separate individuals. Seal Subscribed and sworn to me (date) Notary Public* Printed Name and Address My commission expires (date) 7. Regular Agenda a. Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Consensus Principles 7 The Board considered adopting the "Consensus Principles to Guide Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy" discussed and adopted by the attendees at the February 9, 2010 Triangle Mayors and Chairs meeting. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation. FALLS LAKE CONSENSUS PRINCIPLES Background: - Falls Lake is water supply for Raleigh and other Wake County cities - Nutrient Management rules to address nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) loading needed - Draft Rules now issued by NCDWQ, pending EMC approval - Public Hearings likely for late-spring or summer Plan of Action: - Tonight— consideration of Consensus Principles - April/May— staff report on implications of rules, consider draft public hearing comments - Public Hearing comments shared with EMC - General Assembly currently slated to consider in 2010 short session - Rules to be effective January 1, 2011? Staged Implementation: - Goal — reduce N by 40% - Goal — reduce P by 77% - Stage 1 — achieve water quality standards in lower portion of lake within 10 years - Stage 2 — reduce nutrient loads in upper watershed (Orange) within 20 years Consensus Principles - Compromise developed through TJCOG - Created at Mayors/Chairs Committee - Principles 7-11 contain the primary goals and tasks - Jurisdictions that have approved Principles: o City of Durham o Durham County o City of Raleigh o Wake County o Granville County o Town of Butner o Town of Creedmoor o Person County o Hillsborough to consider April 12? Principle #7: - Point sources to achieve 20% N and 40% P reductions by 2016 - New development should meet the N and P loading limits within 18 months of adoption - Existing development— begin program to reduce to 2006 levels within 3 years 7 - Address septic systems if > 20% of N Principle #8: - Stage 2 Compliance from point sources and agriculture should meet water quality standards no later than 2036 - Existing development reductions begin in 2021, and continue based on local plans approved by the EMC Principle #9: - Proposed rules based on limited data - Better sampling and monitoring would enhance the data - EMC should reexamine strategy by 2018 o Potential to achieve Stage 1 by 2021 o Cost of attempting to achieve Stage 2 o Could alternative standards meet water uses? o Impact on water quality in the upper lake - Create a Scientific Advisory Board to make recommendations by 2019 - DWQ Plan for rule revisions in 2019 accordingly - No implementation of Stage II until EMC determines if alternatives should be pursued Principle #10: - Jurisdictions should fund annual monitoring of chlorophyll-a - Cost-share arrangement to help fund - Consider using the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (existing) for this - Make results available to proposed Scientific Advisory Board Principle #11: - Create and implement a nutrient trading program among all regulated sources - Allow local governments flexibility to determine mix of reduction strategies o Point and non-point source controls o Land conservation o Other Recommendation: - Consider approving Consensus Principles - Staff will return in April/May with: o Detailed analysis on implications of proposed rules for Orange County, and o Draft public hearing comments for presentation to the EMC Commissioner Pelissier made reference to Principle #9 where it says that it may not be feasible to attain all currently designated uses in the upper lake. She asked if there was any discussion of that or other uses being eliminated. Dave Stancil said, based on the watershed classification, there are a number of provisions that are allowed. In this case, this is an acknowledgement that the impacts and final results are not known of implementing these rules and whether it will allow all potential uses to be viable in the future. 7 Frank Clifton said that the long-term implications for Orange County are septic tanks located in areas accessing or near creeks or streams and storm water runoff regulations could require sedimentation basins to be developed. He said that he and the Chair had some extensive meetings on these issues and the parties that have the most at stake are the urbanized areas that draw their water supply. Commissioner Hemminger said that she is the UNRBA County Commissioners' representative and she went to several of the Falls Lake Stakeholder meetings. She said that Falls Lake water is dirty and there was a lot of discussion about the pollution of this lake. Commissioner Jacobs said that over the years the Board of Health and the Health Department have been interested in septic tank monitoring and there was a program that was not implemented. There was also discussion with OWASA about septic tank monitoring in water quality critical areas. He asked if anything in that regard had ever happened. Health Director Rosemary Summers said that the original proposal for septic monitoring was done in 1999 but there was never any funding to implement this program. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a subject that has come up many times at the TJCOG and there is a difference between the municipal representatives and the county representatives in that the counties protect the water supplies essentially for free and the bill is coming due now. OWASA had a very aggressive program of purchasing conservation easements or protecting lands and it is no longer doing this. He said that there was a comment from a Durham City Council member at one of the board meetings complaining that Wake County was asking them to spend a lot of money to protect Wake County's water supply. He pointed out that Durham has not spent a penny to protect its own water supply in Orange County. He said that he is intrigued about this notion of a robust and innovative training program, but he wonders if anyone is going to organize it, insist upon it, negotiate it, or implement it. Frank Clifton said that the main parties involved in this process see this as a more productive way to deal with this issue. He thinks that there need to be other methodologies to deal with this issue on a long-term basis. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are negotiations since the State is setting deadlines. Frank Clifton said that these principles are developed by the parties and not the State. This is why Orange County is at on the table. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that the City of Raleigh has been investing in protecting land in Orange County to protect its own water supply. This is a model. He does not think Hillsborough has ever acted to protect its water supply. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there is there any real information on the nutrient loading to surface water for septic tanks. Dave Stancil said that there are estimates from the Division of Water Quality on a sub-watershed basis but not by jurisdiction. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it seems that the only thing that can be requested is a decrease in density in the rural areas. Tom Konsler said that there are technologies available for nutrient reduction in septic systems, but they are expensive. There are sensitive areas with shallow soils or reduced setback buffers where nutrient reduction systems can be permitted and installed. They run about $15-25,000 per household to implement. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is concerned that the rural areas of the basin are charged with a greater responsibility for affecting this problem as some of the urban areas. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve adopting the "Consensus Principles to Guide Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy" discussed and adopted by the attendees at the February 9, 2010 Triangle Mayors and Chairs meeting. 7 Commissioner Yuhasz asked what would happen if Orange County did not adopt this and Frank Clifton said that everyone else would be in the game and Orange County would not. Commissioner Jacobs said that he empathizes with Commissioner Yuhasz' sentiment, and they are still in the negotiating stage, but Orange County needs to be at the table. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Piedmont Food &Agricultural Processing Center: Inter-local Agreement The Board considered approval of the Inter-local Cooperation Agreement governing startup management of the Piedmont Food &Agricultural Processing Center and authorizing the Chair to sign. Noah Rannells said that he came before the Board in January with a draft. This agreement has been reviewed by the four partner counties. He reviewed the highlights as shown in the abstract. The Inter-Local Agreement establishes a `project partnership' based upon the following premises: - The term of the agreement will be until June 30, 2015 unless terminated or extended by the four partner counties. - Orange County will be responsible for legal, day-to-day oversight, accounting, and personnel support for those non-permanent employee(s) that manage the project until it becomes a non-profit corporation - Orange County will be the lead grant recipient and administrator for grant funds including accounting and reporting requirements - Except in the case of revenue shortfall, financial aspects of the Center will not impact the Orange County budget. In case of revenue shortfall, 40% of the revenue shortfall, not to exceed $60,000 per year, will be charged to Orange County. Approval of the Inter-Local Agreement by Alamance, Chatham, and Durham counties will result in 60% of any revenue shortfall, not to exceed $90,000, be divided among the partner counties. These figures are based on a maximum operating budget of $150,000. - Any of the four partner counties can withdraw from the agreement with one year advance notice. If more than one partner county withdraws, the agreement shall terminate Chair Foushee asked staff to go over the three areas that are being changed - #6, Financial Support; #15, Personal Property; and #17, Rates, Fees, and Charges. County Attorney John Roberts said that there are four changes. The first change is a deletion of the third "Whereas" paragraph. This is a holdover for when this item was intended to go to a non-profit. He went through the remaining three changes (white sheet with colored highlights). Blue is from Chatham County, yellow is from Durham County, green is from Alamance County, and red is Orange County. The first change, "and no party shall have any obligation to make any payment during fiscal year 2010-11." This is regarding the fact that there are grant funds to cover any operating shortfalls for 2010-11. This was a change by Chatham County. Durham County made a change that June 1st is when the parties will get notification to make plans for payment by June 30th of any fiscal year. The effect of that is that Orange County, the Executive Director of the center, and the Manager will have to estimate probably two months of actual losses or revenues of the center. The next section, "such payment shall be made as a 7 be made as a reimbursement of expenses incurred by Orange County in addition to their share of shortfalls for the then current fiscal year in which a notice of revenue shortfall is provided." This is change requested by Durham County that allows them to work their budgets appropriately. Chatham County made a change that specifies that the fiscal year payments for the partner counties shall not exceed $30,000 per fiscal year. Alamance County made a change that "any shortfall payment made shall be reimbursed to the Parties from profits made in subsequent years." This also relates to the change made by Orange County in number 17, "during the term of this Agreement any profits generated may be used for the repayment of any shortfall payments made by the Parties during the term of this Agreement." In section 15, initially a couple of the other counties were interested in owning some of the personal property that is purchased by the grant funds. John Roberts said that he objected to this because Orange County is administering these grant funds and Orange County got the grants and is responsible for the property that is purchased with the grant money. This change says that any property purchased for this will remain Orange County's property except in instances where the respective parties have purchased something. Frank Clifton said that there was an assumption in the beginning that they could do a 501c-3 but that did not work out yet, so there is $1 million in grant funding that needs to be spent. The key will be identifying the people that represent the initial body that takes on the 501c-3. Once this is established, then the County can be compensated for its building. Commissioner Gordon said that she is in favor of this processing center, but her questions have to do with the financial arrangements. She is concerned about the deletion of the third "Whereas" paragraph that "Orange County agreed to dedicate the facility at 500 Valley Forge Road to the Center, with compensation to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties prior to its opening for operation." She said previously when the Commissioners voted on this, the resolution that was passed included a statement that there would be compensation for the building. According to her reading of the current agreement, it appears that Orange County is responsible for everything except in the case where there is a shortfall for the operating expenses, and then the partner counties will contribute 60%. As far as she can see, Orange County is responsible for maintenance, insurance, and everything in the cost category except when someone is hired. However, based on the information in the agenda packet, it is not clear what is in the operating budget. She said that she understands that they want to get this started, but when you look at all of the language, Orange County has a lot of responsibility compared with the partners, including when there is a shortfall. She would like to see the three year budget. She said that this should be formed as an enterprise fund and there should be some provision that Orange County will start to get lease payments because Orange County owns the building. Noah Rannells said that they have been working hard to come up with a budget since there are few models to follow. The big concerns on the budget are utility costs and once the center is up and running, they can get these numbers to share with the boards. He can itemize the rest of the budget, but in terms of the utility cost, he does not have a strong base to share. Commissioner Gordon said that it is a five-year commitment and the first year is covered, but she wants to know about the next 4 years. Frank Clifton said that he would bring whatever the staff has, but it will all be guesstimates. The reality is that this facility was dreamed as an opportunity for the agricultural community to process foods for retail markets. The budget is based on a limited amount of staffing (one person) to manage the facility. The people using the facility will be paying per hour to use the facility. The amount of usage and the utilities will depend on what types of processors come in to use the facility. The grant funding available 7 funding available basically renovates the building and provides for the equipment and the first year operational costs. He said that he would hope that the consultant's report was accurate, the community demand does exist, and the 501c-3 can be established so that the County will be out of the business. John Roberts said that one area of objection by the other counties was regarding the lease payments and why only Orange County would get these. Regarding the enterprise fund suggestion, the general statues have a specific list of enterprises that counties can engage in, including solid waste and a few others. This type of operation is not included. It can be operated as an incubator. Commissioner Nelson made reference to the issue of budgeting. He said that you always have to have a budget with a start-up and the ones that fail are the ones that do not have a budget in the beginning nor a work plan. He asked to see the business plan for this. Noah Rannells said that ever since this feasibility study was completed, there has been a working budget. The business plan is not fully developed because of the grant funding. There is a single-year and a working three-year budget with cash flows. As soon as he gets something that is worthy to be shared, then he will share it. Commissioner Nelson said that if he were a lender, he would not vote to give money to fund this without seeing a business plan. Commissioner Nelson asked how this could become a 501c-3. Frank Clifton said that there was a business plan set up to get the grant funding. What is not known exactly is the cost of the equipment because the type of processing is not known. The key to spinning this off as a 501c-3 is to get the right people involved. He would like to get the County out of this business as soon as possible. Commissioner Nelson said that spinning this into a non-profit when it was once a County project will be difficult but he will vote for this anyway. He asked the County Commissioners if they are comfortable with this remaining a County function forever. John Roberts said that one of the reasons that this will not be spun off immediately to a non-profit is that one of the major grantors had significant concerns about giving this to a non- profit that does not have experience. The agreement does contemplate going to a non-profit at some point. Commissioner Pelissier said that she thinks that it is important that this move forward. She asked when the other counties would be voting on this. John Roberts said that he would like the other counties to act on this immediately. There is a July 2010 start date listed. Commissioner Pelissier made reference to item 2 on the second page of the agreement and the possibility for future expansion. She asked what this really means. Noah Rannells said that this accounts for the opportunity that this is an economic development entrepreneur base and would allow for other sites, not at this physical location, to be developed in tandem with this effort. Commissioner Pelissier said that as soon as possible she would like to have the steering committee formed to start talking about spinning this off as a 501c-3. John Roberts said that he does not think that any other county would object if the Board of County Commissioners added that language in here. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Frank Clifton could provide a detailed draft budget and business plan by the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year and Frank Clifton said yes. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the Inter-Local Agreement and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board and that the Board of County Commissioners resolves to: 1) Ask the Manager to provide a detailed draft budget and business plan by the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year; and 7 2) Encourage the steering committee to develop a plan to establish a non-profit that would take over operation of the processing center in a timely manner. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he understands the concerns about the future for the building, but hopefully the profitability will show itself fairly soon and they can move to the non- profit. Commissioner Gordon said that she would vote for this because she is hoping that the risk is not too great and the benefits will be greater than the risk. VOTE UNANIMOUS Frank Clifton asked if the Board would agree with the County entering into negotiations with an existing non-profit if one was found that was in this business. The Board agreed by consensus. 8. Reports a. Rogers Road Area Well and Septic Survey and Assessment Report The Board received the results of the assessment of well and septic systems in the Rogers-Eubanks Road area. Environmental Health Director Tom Konsler made a PowerPoint presentation. Well and Septic Assessment in the Rogers — Eubanks Neighborhood Area Presented by: Orange County Health Department To the Orange County Board of Health February 24th, 2010 Rogers/Eubanks Neighborhood Area Survey Partners •UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health — Epidemiology Department •Engineers Without Borders — UNC Student Chapter •Rogers/Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) •Orange County Health Department Purpose ▪Assess water supply wells for proper protection from contaminants •Determine the safety and quality of drinking water available to residents not on the public system ▪Assess the adequacy and functionality of septic systems Survey Methods 7 •Inspection of well location and protection •Water sample collection ▪Assessment of septic system performance •Homeowner questionnaire Survey Area •Area defined by RENA as Historic Rogers Rd Eubanks Rd area served by septic •Area as defined included 70 homes •45 homes participated in the survey ■11 homes served by well water •45 homes served by septic system Area of Interest Water Quality Assessment Comprehensive Water Sampling 11 wells sampled for: •Bacteria —total coliform & fecal coliform •Nitrates/Nitrites •Inorganic analyses •pH, Turbidity ▪Volatile Organic •Petroleum •Pesticides Water Sampling Results •1 home —within EPA recommended limits •1 home —within limits, but some MTBE •9 homes — exceeded one or more water quality standards •3 - total or fecal coliform •4 - excess iron ■1 - excess manganese •4 - pH lower than recommended ■1 - excess lead •2 homes — low levels of MTBE '2 homes — low levels of pesticides Septic System Assessment Septic Systems •45 homes •Survey questionnaire 7 •On-site assessment by Orange County Health Department Environmental Health staff Septic System Classifications •Compliant •Non-compliant •Needs maintenance •Malfunctioning •Maintenance related •End-of-life failure Septic System Results •Of 45 septic systems assessed •21 Compliant status ■10 Non-compliant • 2 Need maintenance ■12 Malfunctioning •7 Maintenance related failure •5 End-of-life failure Septic System Results Septic Failure Rates •10.9% 1982 Orange County study of 1333 systems •10% 2005 Wake County Study of systems 5 to 23 years old •4% Orange County WTMP inspections systems <8 years old •10% Orange County WTMP inspections systems >8 years old Next Steps •Conduct limited follow-up water sampling •Distribute reports to residents •Work with task group to identify funding for •Connections to public water •Well repairs or treatment systems •Interim septic failure relief •Connections to public sewer Possible Funding Sources The Community Group has identified the following possible sources most of which have a cash match requirement: •The Bernard Allen Emergency Drinking Water Fund •Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 7 •NC Rural Assistance Programs Chair Foushee said that she participated in many of the community group meetings and she thanked the staff for their assistance. Commissioner Hemminger asked about the next steps. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the Rogers Road Work Group met last week and decided to look at getting some CDBG money and indicating a greater than normal problem with the septic systems. The next step is to ask for some information from Tara Fikes as to what is required and how to go forward with making the request. Tom Konsler said that there may be a need to act sooner than is possible for the long- term solution to some of these septic systems. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there were any plans by Chapel Hill or Carrboro for annexation in this area. Chair Foushee said that it is her understanding that some of these properties are already in the Town of Carrboro. Craig Benedict said that the west side of Rogers Road is the Carrboro annexation area and there is a small area plan for the east side of Rogers Road. There are some development proposals in the area. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to see the draft annexation plan. Frank Clifton said that the Town of Carrboro is going to consider the County's well replacement policy in April. Commissioner Jacobs said that he supports doing this and this is a step forward, but an argument could be made that the three governments that comprise OWASA have more of a responsibility than just well and septic tank repair. He said that there ought to be some engagement with OWASA about this discussion and process because OWASA will have to provide services in this area eventually. Commissioner Nelson said that the County Commissioners received a letter this afternoon from the UNC Center of Civil Rights about connectivity costs. The request was that the County Commissioners consider funding those connections. Commissioner Nelson said that Carrboro has a fund set up for these connectivity costs and he suggested setting up a similar fund. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to ask staff to respond to this request by the UNC Center of Civil Rights regarding hook-up costs for some of the Rogers Road residents, with a particular eye towards setting up a program similar to Carrboro's. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the well repair fund anticipated the possibility of using some of that money for connections to public water as opposed to just well repair. Regarding OWASA, he said that some of this area is difficult to serve by sewer because of its relationship to other sewer lines from a gravity standpoint. There might be some policies that OWASA has and there might be some suggested changes. Frank Clifton said that there are solutions that are cheaper than gravity units for single households. Some of those properties might be solved with this. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENT: Reverend Robert Campbell thanked Orange County for allowing the Health Department to do this survey. He said that there are homes that have been identified that could be connected by extending the sewage line that Habitat brought out there. He said that they would just have to 7 would just have to get approval from OWASA that the lines run up and down Purefoy Drive. b. County Health Rankings: Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health Report The Board received the results of the County Health Rankings Report for Orange County. Health Director Rosemary Summers made a PowerPoint presentation. NC County Health Rankings 2010 Rankings by University of Wisconsin Project Description •Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded the project to look at a standard way to measure how healthy a county is and where they can improve •Each state had rankings published for all of its jurisdictions/counties •Rankings are a snapshot in time The Model Used Health Outcomes •Mortality Measures —Years of potential life lost prior to age 75 (5,730) •Morbidity Measures —Self-reported fair or poor health (12%) —Self-reported poor physical health days (avg. 2.6 days in past 30 days) —Self-reported poor mental health days (avg. 2.9 days in past 30 days) —% of births with low birth weight (<2500 grams) (8 per 1,000 births) Health Factors •Health Behaviors (30%) of score —Tobacco (13% adults smoke) —Diet and Exercise •Physical activity (48% adults meet guidelines) •Adult obesity (22% with BMI>30) —Alcohol use •Binge drinking (14% have had more than 5 drinks in same day last month) •Motor vehicle death rate (14 per 100,000 population) —High risk sexual behavior •Teen births (13 per 1,000 under 19) •Chlamydia rate (194 per 100,000 population) Health Factors *Clinical Care (20% of score) —Access to Care •Uninsured adults (23% under 65) •Primary care providers (387 per 100,000 population) —Quality of Care 7 •Preventable hospital stays (47 per 100,000 population) •Diabetic screening (87% received HbA1c test) •Hospice use (35% Medicare patients used in last 6 months of life) Health Factors •Socioeconomic Factors (40% of score) —Education •High school graduation (83%) •College graduates (54% of adult population) —Employment •Unemployment rate (4%) [2008] —Income •Children in poverty (12% under 18) [2007] •Income inequality (53%) Health Factors —Family & Social Support •Social/emotional support (16% adults without support) •Single-parent households (7%) —Community Safety •Violent crime (4 homicides per 100,000 population) Health Factors •Physical environment (10% of score) —Air quality •Unhealthy air due to ozone (0) •Unhealthy air due to particulate matter (9 average annual number) [2005] —Built environment •Access to healthy foods (56% zip codes with grocery stores or farmer's markets) •Liquor stores (.7 per 100,000 density) Overall Orange Rank: Second •First —Health Behaviors —Clinical Care —Social and Economic Factors •Second —Mortality •Fourth —Morbidity •32nd —Physical environment Celebrating Success! *Strong long established partnerships *Collaboration between public and private sector •Healthy Carolinians structure that fosters and encourages collaboration 7 •Excellent health care system •Excellent schools Orange County Acts •Health Department through Healthy Carolinians examines local data every four years •More than 45 community agencies involved •Last Community Health Assessment in 2007 •Four priority areas were selected by the community —Obesity/health prevention and promotion —Adolescent health with emphasis on reducing drug and alcohol use —Mental health and substance abuse (adults) —Child health especially preventing child abuse and neglect •Committees plan and carry out projects in each area Orange County Acts- Examples •Farmer's markets have grown in past two years *Orange County Partnership for Young Children has strong community garden program to increase access to healthy foods •Both school systems have new programs in physical activity and nutrition •Pro bono counseling network developed What's Next •Monitor statistics through NC CATCH •Room to improve, especially in disparity health •High uninsured adult rates at 23% of adults under 65 *Continual examination of best practice programs to improve the health of our community Commissioner Jacobs asked for a perspective on how Orange County ranks in income inequality compared to other counties and Rosemary Summers said that North Carolina on average was 46%. The target established was 40%. She did not look at individual county rankings for this, but she only used the North Carolina target on this factor. What it indicates is that there is a large population of people at the low end for income. Commissioner Jacobs said that this good ranking is a testament to the Health Department. c. Planned Educational Summit on the Land Application of Wastewater Biosolids The Board received information about a regional educational summit being planned by NC State University and partners on the land application of wastewater biosolids and provided feedback. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that in October there was a work session and the staff was directed to create a forum on biosolids issues. In the interim, NC State started planning this kind of forum. He said that this forum may be one that Orange County could participate in instead of creating its own forum. The registration fee will be $25 for this event and there will be scholarships. He said that the staff feels good about the way this forum progressed and it might meet the needs of Orange County. He suggested encouraging Orange County residents to participate in this event. 7 Commissioner Pelissier said that she hopes that staff would come with a summary back to the County Commissioners after the forum for those that could not attend. d. 2009 Revaluation Report The Board received a report 2009 Revaluation results including data on the informal appeal process, the Board of Equalization and Review, Property Tax Commission appeals, and the 2009 sales ratio. Tax Administrator Jo Roberson made a PowerPoint presentation. 2009 Orange County Revaluation Report Presented by Jo Roberson Orange County Tax Administrator Judy Ryan Deputy Tax Assessor Appeal Data •The 2009 Orange County Revaluation became effective January 1, 2009 amid a nationwide recession and constant national news reports of significant real estate declines. •However, the 2009 revaluation averages reflected an overall increase of 24% in Orange County real estate value since January 1, 2005 (previous revaluation effective date). Appeal Data •In 2009 approximately 5026 Informal Appeals were filed, reviewed, and decided on by Orange County Appraisal Staff. •In addition, there were 1656 Formal Appeals filed, reviewed and ruled on by the Orange County Board of Equalization and Review. •The results of these efforts are described as follows: Informal Appeals Received and reviewed from December 10, 2008 through March 2009. 05026 property values appealed 03073 property values adjusted •1953 property values unchanged Formal Appeals The results of the informal reviews were mailed in mid May and included notification to the appellants of their right to appeal further to the Orange County Board of Equalization and Review. This Board began the formal hearing process in April and continued through mid December 2009. Formal Appeals 2009 Formal Appeals: •1656 Property Values Appealed •992 Property Values Adjusted (99% lowered) •664 Property Values Unchanged .469 appealed with no change .77 canceled 7 •118 no shows *These amounts are approximate. North Carolina Property Tax Commission Appeals The Board of Equalization and Review mailed decision notices periodically during 2009 and in these notices appellants were further informed of their rights to appeal further to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. •There are currently 201 properties under appeal to the Property Tax Commission. Sales Ratio Analysis To produce a thorough analysis of the sales that occurred in 2009 as compared to the assessed values in 2009, three different sources were used: •Database defined by the North Carolina Department of Revenue and the basis for the annual state sales ratio analysis •County Sales Database •County Sales from the Local Multiple Listing Service All three sources produced very similar results North Carolina Department of Revenue Sales Study •Number of sales: 245 •Average ratio of assessed value to sale price: 100% •Median ratio of assessed value to sale price: 98.60% •Measure of how closely values cluster around the median *(COD): 12.64 *The statistical measure of how closely values cluster around the median is known as the coefficient of dispersion (COD). The lower the COD the more consistently the assessed values cluster around the sales, so the lower the COD the better the revaluation results. The state considers any COD of 20 and below to be acceptable. Orange County has always maintained a COD well below 20. County Sales Database •Number of sales: 1326 •Average ratio of assessed value to sale price: 98.81% •Median ratio of assessed value to sale price: 98.87% •Measure of how closely values cluster around the median (COD): 10.06 Sales from Multiple Listing Service •Number of sales: 1201 •Average ratio of assessed value to sale price: 100.40% •Median ratio of assessed value to sale price: 100.00% •Measure of how closely values cluster around the median (COD): 9.68 Reconciliation 7 Indications are that the county real estate market has overall remained flat through 2009, and the revaluation values overall continue to be fair, equitable, and reflective of the current market. Commissioner Gordon asked some clarifying questions about the sales ratio, which were answered by Judy Ryan. Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to understand that the revaluations were fair and that they do reflect market rates. Commissioner Yuhasz reiterated what Commissioner Gordon said in that these numbers indicate that the assessed values do reflect the market values at least for the year going forward. Jo Roberson said that this revaluation was a good revaluation from the standpoint of the citizen's participating and giving feedback because it gives good data. Commissioner Jacobs asked how many properties were assessed and Jo Roberson said that it was just under 52,000 pieces of real property. Around 9% of this total had informal appeals. Compared to other counties that did revaluations, this was slightly lower. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the 1,953 property values that were unchanged and asked how many of those constituted the 1,656 property values that appealed. Judy Ryan said that it would be a combination because they sent out the notices of value change from the informal appeals a little later in 2009 than normal. The formal appeals were a combination of the people who received their letters and made a formal appeal from that and also the people who received a letter about the values changing 40%. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would like this to get out into the news. Jo Roberson said that she would take this under advisement and could work to get a press release out. PUBLIC COMMENT: Joe Phelps said that the Tax Office did as good a job as they could, but the Board needs to look at how they charge the Tax Office to do this in the future and maybe develop a different way to assess property. He said that he just pulled some valuations out today and he thinks that the way that valuations are close to sales value is by averaging. He said that there are a lot of properties that sold close to the value, a lot that sold a little above value, and a lot that sold a little below value. He listed some properties that had sold and some properties that are listed for sale now. He said that his point is that the highs and lows bring incorrect figures to the Board. e. Library Services Proposal — County Funding Allocations to the Town of Chapel Hill for Library Services The Board considered the County Manager's library services proposal regarding County funding allocations to the Town of Chapel Hill for library services and provided feedback to staff. Frank Clifton said that his indication has been that if the County wants to support this library, then there should be some basis to do that so that everyone agrees with it. He said that Orange County could fund the Chapel Hill Library 48% of what it funds the County's main branch. This would be about $500,000 a year. He thinks that there should be some type of formal agreement. He said that if there is an agreement, then Chapel Hill should not charge some type of fee to individuals who are not residents of Chapel Hill. 7 Commissioner Nelson said that he is very comfortable with the recommendation to create an MOA with Chapel Hill and let the 48% be a starting point for negotiations. He likes the recommendation for phasing in whatever the recommendation may be. He said that this MOU should be negotiated by Managers and not elected officials. Commissioner Nelson said that there are other issues to work on with library services, including the lack of hours at the main branch in Hillsborough. There has never been a formal plan for the task force for the southwest Carrboro branch. He thinks that it is important to address these other issues. He recommended asking staff to come back with some recommended steps over a three-year period to address these other issues — hours at the main branch and the library task force recommendations for the rest of the County. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he appreciated the desire for extra funding for Chapel Hill Library and he is very concerned that the Board has made a commitment to improve library services in the Orange County library system. He would be hesitant to fix any particular percentage on what is spent on the main branch or the entire library system as a basis for the funding for the Chapel Hill Library. He hopes that the County will spend more money on the Orange County Library System, both to improve the services in the main library and eventually to provide some additional services to the southwest part of the County. He does not see how this can be done at the same time as increasing funding to the Chapel Hill Library. He said that if Orange County is going to continue to fund Chapel Hill Library, then there should be some interoperability such as a single card system for all libraries. Commissioner Jacobs said that he agrees with Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Yuhasz. He said that the Board has repeatedly made commitments for library services and the Board needs to think about how high a priority it is placing on library services and what sacrifices it would be willing to make to have library services. He said that the Board advocated for putting $10,000 in the budget for interoperability of the two library computer systems. He asked what happened with this. He said that there should be a real partnership and someone from Orange County should also serve on the Chapel Hill Library Board. He is comfortable having the Managers discuss this partnership. Commissioner Gordon said that it is reasonable to have a formal agreement. She agrees with the Manager's recommendation that there needs to be a formula based on the county's funding of the main library. She said that it is important that the County increase the contribution to the Chapel Hill Library during the budget process. She would like an overarching, comprehensive approach to how to fund libraries. It should be an Orange County system that works for all of the citizens in the County. Commissioner Pelissier said that there should be a formal agreement and it needs to be comprehensive. She would like to talk about the issue of going to one library system. She is concerned about an agreement that focuses on interoperability issues only. Chair Foushee said that any agreement needs to be periodically reviewed. Commissioner Nelson agreed and said that his support for funding the Chapel Hill Library is for the current library and not the expansion. Regarding funding library services throughout the County, he thinks that Orange County needs to be perceived as looking at all three interests — Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and southwest area —fairly and equally. 9. County Manager's Report Time did not allow. 10. County Attorney's Report Time did not allow. 7 11. Appointments a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee — New Appointment The Board considered making a new appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to appoint Dr. Mary Fraser to a one-year training term, which will end on March 31, 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Equalization and Review Board — New Appointments The Board considered appointments to the Board of Equalization and Review. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he has talked to all of the applicants and each has indicated a willingness to serve. He said that he would like to see a greater emphasis on professionals with real estate knowledge. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve: Chair—Thomas Heffner Member: Raymond Atwater Member: Jennifer Marsh Alternate: Karen Morrisette Alternate: J. Timothy Kepley Alternate: Barbara Levine Alternate: Reginald Morgan Alternate: Paul Snow VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee — New Appointment The Board considered making one new appointment to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Dr. Mario Battigelli to a one-year training term, which will end on March 16, 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Deferred 13. Information Items • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funding Report • March 2, 2010 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 14. Closed Session-NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. 7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board