Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-18-2010 � APPROVED 6/15/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING May 18, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 18, 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 Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers 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 Chanqes to the Aqenda The Board added a closed session item: "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve adding this closed session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Chair asked that the Board pull item 4-f from the consent agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to pull item 4-f on the consent agenda, General Enqineerinq and Environmental Manaqement Services Contract. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Aqenda � AI Hartkopf, Chair of the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment, said that there have been concerns about the parking issue with the justice facilities. He said that there are statements that the Board of County Commissioners have approved the plans brought before the Board of Adjustment. He said that he does not believe that and before this is spun out of control, as an elected body, he asked that the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment and the Board of County Commissioners try to become of one mind and that these discussions are done in open session. b. Matters on the Printed Aqenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Presentation of the Southern Gerontoloqical Society's 2010 Best Practices in Aqinq Award to Oranqe County The Board received the Southern Gerontological Society's 2010 Best Practices in Aging Award from Dr. Janice Wassel, President of the Southern Gerontological Society. Department on Aging Director Jerry Passmore introduced Dr. Janice Wassel. He said that Dr. Wassel is also an active member of the Orange County Advisory Board on Aging and her expertise has been tremendous. Dr. Janice Wassel said that Orange County is an amazing county and one of the first counties to develop and formalize a Master Aging Plan. Nationally, Orange County has been a model for other counties and states. She presented Orange County with this award. This society is a network of the south's best gerontology doctors. She said that Orange County and the Department on Aging, together with UNC faculty, have built excellent bridges. She read the list of individuals receiving this award: Kate Barrett— Department on Aging Transition Administrator Jan Gerard — Licensed Clinical Social Worker Vibeke Tally— Department on Aging Occupational Therapist Dr. Rachel Rasteed — Physician at UNC's School of Medicine Jenna Birkhart— Pharmacist from UNC's School of Pharmacy Janice Tyler— Department on Aging Senior Center Administrator Myra Austin — Department on Aging Wellness Coordinator Dr. Carol Giuliani — Physical Therapist, Director of UNC Human Movement and Science Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7:09 PM. Dr. Wassel said that she has served on the Advisory Board on Aging for years and she is concerned that this advisory board may not be able to continue to serve in its current function if it does not remain an independent board, separate from the senior centers. She said that demographically the board is diverse racially, age-wise, professionally, and with regard to education. b. Distinquished Budqet Presentation Award The Board considered recognizing the budget staff of the Orange County Financial Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2009-10 fiscal year budget document. � Financial Services Director Clarence Grier said that the County has received this award for many years and he is accepting it on the behalf of the Budget department. He recognized Paul Laughton, Tonya Walton, and Allison Chambers. The Board recognized the Orange County Finance Department for earning the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Clarence Grier recognized Donna Coffey, as this was her last budget cycle with Orange County. c. Presentation of Manaqer's Recommended Fiscal Year 2010-11 Annual Operatinq Budqet The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2010-11 Annual Operating Budget. Frank Clifton said that the County Commissioners recognized beginning last fiscal year the hurdles that they would be facing this year. The Board's direction to him was the desire to bring back a balanced budget with no tax increase. He said that there are only two departments that will not have fewer employees than last year— Child Support Services and EMS, which are adding needed staff to improve response time. He said that the County relies heavily on property taxes for its revenue. He said that over the last few years, the County has drawn down its fund balances, but this is not a good practice in the long term. He has tried to move the fund balance to about 10-12%. He said that if there is not more economic development, the County will rely more heavily on the property tax. Clarence Grier and Michael Talbert made the PowerPoint presentation. County Manager's Recommended 2010-11 Annual Operating Budget Presentation Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill Orange County, NC May 18, 2010 Recommended General Fund Budget ❑Totals $174.9 million ■Decrease of $2.7 million from original current year budget of $177.6 million. Represents an $8.9 million decrease from the current year amended budget. ■Represents 1.5 percent decrease from previous year original budget. ❑Budget decreases means everyone — schools, non-profit agencies, and county departments - receive less money next year than they received this year Guiding Principles ■Meets Board directives ❑Balances County's operating budget without a property tax rate increase ❑Fund local school districts at 48.1% of the County's General Fund Proposed Ad Valorem Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2010 ❑Recommended tax rate of 85.8 cents per$100 of assessed valuation ■This is the rate that produces $132 million in property tax revenues for FY2010-11 ■Overall Property valuation increased 1.1% ❑One cent on property tax estimated to generate $1,521,612 � Sales Tax Revenues ❑Recommended Sales Tax Revenues of $14.4 million is 14.3% less than the $16.8 million budgeted in 2009-10 ■Actual sales tax revenues are down over 30% since the peak of $22.5 million in fiscal 2007-08 ■The Medicaid - Sales Tax swap will limit future growth of Sales Tax Revenues Medicaid - Sales Tax Swap Formula Fiscal 2009-2010 County Estimated Revenues $15.7 million Less Cities Hold Harmless $2.0 million County Revenues $13.7 million County's Hold Harmless $3.2 million Plus Cities Hold Harmless $2.0 million County Lost Revenues $5.2 million Less Estimated Medicaid $5.0 million Hold Harmless Threshold $ .2 million Medicaid - Sales Tax Swap Formula Hold Harmless Threshold $ .2 million Plus $.5 million Guaranteed by state$ .5 million Estimated County Hold Harmless $ .7 million Total Sales Tax Revenues $14.4 million (13.7 million + $.7 million) Sales Tax before Medicaid Swap $15.7 million Net Hold Harmless Revenue Loss $ 1.3 million Medicaid - Sales Tax Swap Summary Estimated Medicaid Now paid by the State $5 million Sales Tax Revenues lost Due to Medicaid Swap $1.3 million County Benefit of Medicaid Swap $ 3.7 million Sales Tax Revenues Summary ❑2010-2011 Sales Tax Revenues estimated to grow by 2% ❑2010-2011 Medicaid Expense estimated to grow by 8-10% ❑The County will continue to benefit from the Medicaid - Sales Tax swap but future growth of Sales Tax Revenues will be limited. Proposed Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools District Tax Rate Effective July 1, 2010 ❑Recommended tax rate of 18.84 cents per$100 of assessed valuation ■Represents no increase in the property tax rate for the District � ❑Recommended tax rate will generate $18.6 million ■In addition to funds district will receive from Countywide property taxes ❑One cent on district tax estimated to generate $987,247 Recommended Funding for Chapel Hill Carrboro City and Orange County Schools ❑Total General Fund appropriation totals $84.1 million ■These funds will fund day-to-day operations, repayment of school related debt, and capital ■Appropriation equals 48.1 percent of total General Fund ■Reflects $1.3 million decrease from current year General Fund appropriation ■Equates to $3,096 per student for each of the 19,177 students in both districts for day- to-day operating funds ■In addition, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools will receive additional $18.6 million from special district tax Additional Funding for Local Schools ❑In addition to the $84.1 million for operations, debt and capital, recommended budget allocates $1.8 million to fund non-mandated safety net initiatives for both school districts. Some of these initiatives are: ■School Health Nurses - $610,729, a decrease of 7,003 ■School Resource Officers and Social Workers for- $531,255, an increase of $31,000. ■School Social Workers - $642,374, the same funding as the current year Funded County Initiatives ❑Major Changes in Services .General Government .Realignment and reassignment of employees with the County Manager Office .Elimination of County switchboard operation (relocation of staff) .Ending the custodial contract with Orange Enterprises .Cuts in utilities .Reduced resources for in-house spay and neutering services provided by Animal Services .Reduction in use of temporary personnel across departments .General Services .Reduced information technology purchases .Sanitation moved to Solid Waste .Reduction of temporary personnel across departments .Reduction in the number of available early voting sites from four to two. .Community and Environment .Art Commission has been moved to the Visitors Bureau for funding purposes. .Reduction of temporary personnel across departments .Human Services .Discontinuing the Cooperative Extension Breast Feeding Program ( Relocation of staff) � .Reduction of temporary personnel across departments .Public Safety .Increased personnel and reassignment of existing personnel. .Add one new Emergency Medical Service (EMS) vehicle to decrease emergency response time. .Reduction of temporary personnel in the ES department Examples of Recommended Changes in County Services ■Merged services for recreation and parks ■Culture and Recreation ■Reduced and merged library hours for the McDougle and Cybrary branches in Carrboro. ■Reduction of temporary personnel ■Close Cedar Grove Branch Library ■Non Profit Organizations ■Reduce funding provided to non-profit organizations from $1,043,742 for FY2009-10 to $848,600. ■Long Range/Pay-as-you Go County Capital ■Long range/pay-as-you go county capital will be reduced to $300,000 from $2.6 million in FY2009-10. This represents a decrease of $2.3 million. FY2010-11 Budget Impacts Where the Money Goes Additional Funding Options ❑Article 46 '/4 Sales Tax ❑Appropriated Fund Balance, if necessary Public Hearings and Work Sessions (All Meetings Begin at 7:00 p.m.) Document Availability ❑Clerk to Board of Commissioners ❑County Financial Services Office ❑Orange County Library ❑Chapel Hill Public Library ❑Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library ❑Cybrary, Carrboro ❑Cedar Grove Branch Library ❑Orange County Website ■www.co.orange.nc.us Clarence Grier said that this was one of the most difficult things he had to do and the departments did a great job in helping to cut the budget the way they did. Frank Clifton said that the key to the reduction in education is not in the classrooms but in capital. He said that he does recommend funding Durham Tech at 100% of its current budget because this goes to maintenance of the building only. In looking at outside agencies, he said � he said that he looked at ones that were duplication of services, etc. He suggested that the County might want to look at the '/4-cent sales tax because the land transfer tax has failed and continues to fail in other counties. He suggested having a referendum phrased so that the public would know clearly what the money was being directed toward. It would only produce $500,000 in this year's budget because it would take about three or four months after it was implemented before the County received funds. He thinks that it would probably be two to three years before true results were seen. As of 2008, Orange County ranked #2 in the State in per capita income. In that same year, Orange County ranked #77 out of 100 counties in sales tax collections per capita. This means that the people that live in Orange County are shopping elsewhere. He thinks that this needs to be a priority— increasing the sales tax by increasing economic development. Frank Clifton said that he did move the Arts function to be funded under tourism because it is a steady source of revenue and it is tied to overnight stays. There is a close relationship between the Arts function, economic development, and tourism in Orange County. Also, the tourism function has two taxes —the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County. The County dedicates 100% of tourism revenues to the tourism function and the Town of Chapel Hill designates 15% of its collections. Theoretically, Orange County could move 85% of those revenues out of tourism and into some other County function. He would like to continue to have dialogue with the Town of Chapel Hill about how it might participate at a higher level toward the promotion of tourism within Chapel Hill and Orange County. Also, there was a reserve fund set up a while ago in the tourism budget in the amount of about $200,000, so it has been moved back to Economic Development for small business loans. Frank Clifton made reference to ways of further reducing the budget and said that roughly 50% goes to education and that leaves 50% for County functions. Of that 50%, probably 25% of the 50% would be federal or state dollars being passed through to supplement services delivered under federal and state guidelines. The remainder of it is property tax, sales tax, and fees for service. He said that they have wiped out County budgets this year and there is no capital except for minor things. He said that there are only four new employees and they are for EMS. There was also some restructuring done in EMS and he eliminated six middle management positions. These are now paramedic slots. Frank Clifton said that there are no salary or cost-of-living increases. There will be an increase in health insurance of about $200,000. Retiree insurance is going to increase by $250,000 and there was a mandated increase in retirement benefits. The living wage has been maintained at $10.12/hour. Frank Clifton said that this was one of the most difficult budget cycles that he has had to deal with. He said that Orange County does more for its residents than any local government that he has been associated with. It is very difficult to balance the budget without affecting people in a dramatic way. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the 48.1% for schools included the $1.8 million for non- mandated safety net and Frank Clifton said no. He said that the Board has had a chart every year. He would like to request this chart to have total County effort toward school funding that includes capital debt and per-pupil compared to other counties in North Carolina. Commissioner Jacobs said that when the Board had the retreat about advisory boards, it talked about hearing from advisory boards before any decisions were made about the dissolution or changing of boards and commissions. He said that he is fully supportive of the concept of the Arts Commission moving under the Visitor's Bureau, but he thinks that those respective boards should discuss this before the budget is adopted on June 15tn � Frank Clifton said that he made no assumptions that these boards would not continue to meet as they have. There is no reduction in funding, but it is just an assignment of that cost to tourism dollars. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kristin Miller spoke on the importance of the Orange County Health Department. She said that she was raised by a single mother with limited income. If they needed health care, they went to the Health Department and she continues to go there even as an adult. There are many hard working residents like her and she cannot imagine what they would have done without this state-supported option. AI Hartkopf said that he was advised by the management of Lowes Foods at Hillsborough Commons that the lease was not going to be renewed in October. He said that he understands that there is a lease with an option to buy surrounding the DSS facility at Hillsborough Commons. He said that the property tax here would be lost if this tenant leaves as well as the sales tax revenue. Frank Clifton said that the County got notice last week that Lowes was not going to renew its lease. The owner of the building contacted the County to see if they wanted to have discussions about this site and there have been no discussions yet. There was a work session several months ago and the proposed purchase price is not something that he can recommend from a financial standpoint for the County and it exceeds the reasonable boundaries. He said that the County also does not want to be in a position of kicking out active businesses. 4. Consent Aqenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from April 13, 20, and 27, 2010 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments — None c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 26 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds. d. Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults Fundinq Plan for FY2010-11 The Board approved the recommended Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults Funding Plan for FY 2010-11 in the amount of $481,880 and authorized the Chair to sign. e. Renewal of Food and Orqanic Waste Collection and Compostinq Contract This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. f. General Enqineerinq and Environmental Manaqement Services Contract The Board was to consider approving a three-year agreement for general engineering and environmental services with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas for professional engineering services for the Solid Waste Management Department and authorized the Chair to sign. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED � g_ Contract Between US Housinq and Urban Development and Oranqe County: Economic Development Initiative Grant for the Piedmont Food &Aqricultural Processinq Center The Board approved a contract with US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) accepting a $237,500 Economic Development Initiative grant for the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center subject to County Attorney review and authorized the Chair to sign. h. Grant Submittals to 1) US Department of Aqriculture, Rural Development - Community Facilities Grant Proqram and 2) NC Specialty Crops Proqram for the Piedmont Food and Aqricultural Processinq Center The Board authorized staff to submit 1) a $250,000 grant proposal to the US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development— Community Facilities grant program and 2) a $100,000 grant proposal to the NC Specialty Crops Program for the Piedmont Food and Agricultural Processing Center. i. Business Plan for the Piedmont Food and Aqricultural Processinq Center The Board received the business plan for the Piedmont Food &Agricultural Processing Center and authorized the staff to continue with the establishment of the Piedmont Food &Agricultural Processing Center. i Fiscal Year 2009-10 Budqet Amendment #10 The Board approved budget, grant and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year 2009-10 for Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation; Economic Development; Department on Aging; Economic Development (Value-Added Processing Center Capital Project Ordinance); Board of Elections; and Emergency Services Department. k. Appropriation of General Fund Balance to Fund Existinq County Capital Projects The Board approved the appropriation of $1,739,270 in General Fund Balance to provide funding for 11 County Capital Projects which have a shortfall. I. Appropriations of Solid Waste Fund Balance for the Lands Leqacy Project The Board approved appropriating $50,000 from the Solid Waste Fund Balance to provide funding for the Lands Legacy Project. m. The Establishment of a County Capital Reserve Fund The Board established a County Capital Reserve Fund for future County Capital needs by approving the attached resolution. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNTY CAPITAL RESERVE FUND WHEREAS, there is a need in Orange County, North Carolina to accumulate funds for future County Capital needs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT: Section 1. The Governing Board hereby creates a Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of funding future County capital needs. Section 2. The fund will remain operational until such time as it is no longer needed. Section 3. The County Capital Reserve Fund will be funded by: - Pay as you go funds (i.e. property tax, sales tax) - General Obligation Bonds � - Alternative Financing - Other revenue sources the Board of Commissioners chooses to dedicate Section 4. The Board of County Commissioners may designate funds to be reserved for a specific future project that will be tracked individually, until the funds are appropriated for a specific capital project in the County Capital Projects Fund. Section 5. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption. n. Close Completed County Capital Projects The Board approved the closing of 26 completed County Capital Projects. o. Amendment to the Oranqe County Personnel Ordinance, Article IV, Section 14.0, Family Leave to Add Provisions for Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 The Board approved the amendment to Article IV, Section 14.0 of the Orange County Personnel Ordinance, to be effective upon signature of the administrative Rules and Regulations by the County Manager, to add provisions relating to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. � Resolution — Medical Waste Incinerator Requlatory Standards The Board approved a resolution calling for the North Carolina Environmental management Commission to adopt State rules on early implementation of new federal emissions standards for medical waste incinerators and approved the conveyance to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission prior to the May 25th public hearing. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE ADOPTION OF STATE RULES REQUIRING EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR HOSPITAL, MEDICAL AND INFECTIOUS WASTE INCINERATORS WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") adopted Federal regulations in 40 CFR 60 Subpart Ce, entitled "Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators" for existing medical waste incinerators ("New Federal Standards"); and WHEREAS, the New Federal Standards establish lower emission rates and additional operating conditions than existing State and prior Federal regulation; and WHEREAS, the New Federal Standards require states to promulgate new state rules that will require existing medical waste incinerators to comply with the New Federal Standards no later than October 6, 2014, and to obtain USEPA approval of the new state rules within two years after October 6, 2009; and WHEREAS, a public hearing is scheduled for May 25, 2010 for the "Title V" permit renewal for a medical waste incinerator in Haw River in adjoining Alamance County owned by Stericycle, Incorporated; and � WHEREAS, the timing of this permit renewal is such that renewal will occur prior to implementation of the new USEPA rules by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission; and WHEREAS, Stericycle's annual waste incineration at its facility was reported as over 26 million pounds last year, with the potential for prevailing westerly winds to carry emissions into Orange County from this location, and WHEREAS, public concerns regarding medical waste incineration have been recently expressed by other local governments, specifically Mecklenburg County, the nearby Towns of Matthews and Stallings, and members of the public and environmental groups; and WHEREAS, the USEPA's action effectively provided notice that emission rates and other requirements would change; and WHEREAS, a three year advance notice period for compliance would be consistent with USEPA's approach in regulating existing affected sources under the Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) program; and WHEREAS, since the North Carolina Division of Air Quality has already initiated the rulemaking process to incorporate the New Federal Standards into the North Carolina rules, it would be more efficient for the State to adopt a statewide rule as required by USEPA and pursue statewide implementation of the New Federal Standards; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the Orange County Board of Commissioners respectfully requests that the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission adopt State rules implementing the October 6, 2009 Federal guidelines (40 CFE 60 Subpart Ce Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators), with an effective compliance date for existing medical waste incinerators of no later than October 6, 2012 to include new operating conditions, completing modifications, beginning operations and demonstrating compliance by stack test by that date. This, the 18th day of May, 2010. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 5. Items Removed From Consent Aqenda e. Renewal of Food and Orqanic Waste Collection and Compostinq Contract The Board considered renewing the contract that enables the County Solid Waste Management Department to provide collection and composting services for separated food waste, organic material and animal bedding to commercial and institutional establishments throughout the County, including for UNC-Chapel Hill and authorizing the Chair to sign. Commissioner Jacobs said that the last time this contract was renewed, he had some issues with it, and he still has some questions about it. There are two glaring absences in food waste collection. He asked about the schools and if they contract their food waste disposal separately. � Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that the County schools are not on the food waste program. It was on it at one time, but it is not on it at the present time. Commissioner Jacobs said that it looks like there is no food waste collected north of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Gayle Wilson said that Weaver Street Market in Hillsborough is collected. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Attachment A and said that Hillsborough was not included in the list. Gayle Wilson said that this is the original agreement. He did not include an updated list of current establishments. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like a renewed effort made to include the school systems before signing this contract. He would like to see the additional waste generated and if this would have a positive impact on the cost. He would also like to see an updated list. Commissioner Jacobs asked that this item be tabled. Gayle Wilson said that he would get the list of establishments currently served right away and he will initiate discussion with the schools. He said that staff has had on and off discussions with the schools and have implemented pilot programs, with no success. There have been quality control issues. Jamezetta Bedford from CHCCS said that the school board signed a new contract that begins July 1St. As of January, they have created a Sustainability Committee, so the timing of this is good. Frank Clifton suggested approving the contract and having staff bring back the information because this is a sole-source vendor and the contract expires on June 30tn A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the renewal of the service contract with Judy D. Brooks Contractor, to collect and compost food waste and authorize the Chair to sign the renewal; with the stipulation that the County Commissioners receive an updated list of establishments before June 30t`', and that conversations are initiated before June 30t`' with the school systems. Commissioner Jacobs said that if there is an increase in the waste, then a lower fee might be negotiated. Frank Clifton said that he understands the objection, but this is not a service he would like to disrupt. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he agreed with Commissioner Jacobs in principle but it will be difficult to negotiate something with the schools to ensure that they will be on board by the time that this contract begins. He said that the contract is subject to renegotiation at the end of the first year. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Jacobs) Commissioner Jacobs said that he would still like to initiate a conversation with the vendor and the schools to see if it would have a positive impact on the rates in future years of the contract. 6. Public Hearinqs-NONE 7. Reqular Aqenda a. Oranqe-Alamance Boundary Line Adjustment Process Includinq Petition Criteria and 2010 Local Bill The Board considered reviewing an Orange-Alamance boundary line adjustment process including petition criteria and 2010 local bill. � Planning Director Craig Benedict said that last night there was a meeting of the Alamance County Commissioners and he attended this meeting. At the meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved a local bill, similar to Orange County's local bill. Orange —Alamance Boundary Line BACKGROUND MULTI-DEPARTMENT INVOLVEMENT •2008 —2009 ■Issue Resurfaced ■NCGS Assistance ■Community Meetings •November 2009 —Joint Meeting of BOCC's •January 2010 — Manager's Memorandum of Understanding •April 2010 —Joint Staff Meeting •May 17, 2010 —Alamance Approved Joint County 2010 Local Bill HYBRID SOLUTION •Part Option 1 ■NCGS Straight Line •Part Option 2 ■Boundary Line Adjustment in Criteria Defined Areas April 2010 Joint Staff Meeting Agenda •Petition Criteria ■Criteria lssues •Flowchart and Timelines •Future BOCC Presentations •2010 and 2011 Local Bills •Petition Criteria ■House and lot within 150' of NCGS ■Lot less than 1.8 acres ■Lot greater than 1.8 acres, move line 50' ■Unique Natural Features 2010 Local Bill •Acknowledge NCGS work as a basis. •Explain the process by which petition determinations are made by both BOCC December 15, 2010. •Exchange of legal documentation in voting, taxes, etc. in an orderly 2011 schedule. •Discovery Waiver •Stay of Boundary Disputes � •Petitions Possible 106+/- ■54+/- taxed in OC could stay in OC ■52+/- taxed in AC could stay in AC •Collington Farms Area Issue •Air Photo Examples •Next Steps ■Finalize Criteria ■Send Joint Letters to Public ■Petition Hearings in Fall County Attorney John Roberts went over the local bill issue. He said that Alamance County approved this bill last night. He made reference to Attachment 4, page 10, which has historical information. Section 4 is the beginning of the substantive information and deals with taxation. He made reference to Section 4, which had some grammatical corrections. He deleted the word "in" in the last sentence. Also, in Section 4(e) he changed "immediately after July 1" to "effective July 1." Also, on page 13, subsection `h', the very last sentence should have "3(c)(5)". In Sections 5 and 6, these are the portions of the bill that affect education. This allows students who currently go to Orange County Schools to remain in Orange County Schools, as well as their siblings. If a student goes to Alamance County Schools, they and their siblings will have the option to remain in Alamance County Schools. None of the students will have to pay the county tuition. Section 7 allows Alamance County and Orange County to establish an administrative review process on the petitions that residents file. The petitions have to be completed by December 15tn Also, in Section 9, the first sentence, it should say, "Section 7" and not "Section 6 and 7." John Roberts said that by no later than May 15, 2011 the General Assembly should have a 2011 local bill that formally ratifies the line. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to Section 3(b), where it talks about public records related to properties. He said that it would be wise to put a notice provision in there so that when properties are shifted from one jurisdiction to another, that some kind of notice be filed in the appropriate Register of Deeds office so that people can find where the properties belong. He made reference to Section 4(g) and the areas affected by the resurvey, etc. and said that if a piece of property moves from one county to another, it will vote for local offices in one county at one precinct, and this statement suggests that they would have to go to another precinct in a different county. John Roberts said that this was vetted by both Election Directors in Orange County and Alamance County. There are representatives who serve across county lines, and this does not say that the voters have to go to another precinct. He will discuss this with the Alamance County Attorney. Craig Benedict said that there is a precinct line changing process that may be a result of this and this would come afterwards. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 6 and 7, "the small lot subdivision shall not be divided on a lot by lot basis." He asked if the subdivision is horizontal, then one part of the subdivision could be in one jurisdiction and the other in the other jurisdiction. He does not want to preclude this. � Craig Benedict said that in the Mill Creek subdivision, the line meanders through the whole subdivision. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is not happy with the idea of petitions. He said that where it is fairly obvious that a subdivision should be in one jurisdiction or another, he does not want to require residents to petition. Frank Clifton said that part of the issue with the petition process is recognition that there is a cost associated with the boundary change because of a survey. Commissioner Pelissier asked about the average cost of a plat done for an appeal. She made reference to the expectations that were set out in the past and she asked what type of communications there will be going forward with the citizens. Craig Benedict said that the version that was agreed upon at the November 9th meeting, this hybrid solution should cover 96% of the deviation. There are about 3-4 lots on N. Oakland that it does not cover. It also does not include situations where a development has been approved and is unrecorded. This is something that is yet to be figured out. The developers will be asked to move the plat lines where applicable. The letters that will go out will explain any deviation from the Option 2, Version 3 in November. Frank Clifton said that the cost of the platting could be reduced if groups do it together. Commissioner Hemminger said that she has a lot of questions surrounding Section 6 about the schools piece. She asked about the transportation piece and Craig Benedict said that both Superintendents are going to formulate the agreement. The agreement is not part of this. Commissioner Hemminger said that the way this is worded, it says that any child that is currently in Orange County and the lot ends up in Alamance County, then they can stay in Orange County Schools, regardless of whether they move to another house that is in Alamance County. That is the way this is worded. Frank Clifton said that it would be the house that is currently occupied. If the student moves into Alamance County to another house, then they would no longer be able to go to Orange County Schools. Commissioner Hemminger wants to make sure that the school systems are involved in these conversations. Frank Clifton said that once the agreement is reached, the Superintendents will get together and deal with these issues. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the financial impact for Orange County. She asked what type of situation would lead to one of the counties having to pay a portion not paid for by the property owners. Craig Benedict said that this would only be a small portion, like $1,000. Commissioner Gordon asked what representations would be made to the people with these petitions. Frank Clifton said that there is a very public process for this. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the petition criteria and asked why the City of Mebane does not have petition criteria. Frank Clifton said that Mebane is in support of the issue and it will be involved in this process. This is an agreement between the two counties at this time. PUBLIC COMMENT: Anne Robbins said that the County Commissioners will not have to worry about the N. gtn Street residents, because they want to stay in Alamance County and they are willing to pay for the surveys. She said that there are three people on N. 9th Street that are paying Orange County taxes. The rest of them have been paying taxes in Alamance County. She said that she has given the Board three different petitions from this community. She read a letter about this. She � this. She asked the County Commissioners to please leave this area in Alamance County and not change it to Orange County because they cannot afford to pay Orange County taxes. Lorena Talley said that she is the only one on 9th Street that is not in Alamance County and she has been living in Mebane for 45 years, but pays Orange County taxes. She asked that her house be put in Alamance County. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the Administration's recommendations, with minor changes as suggested by John Roberts, to approve the petition criteria; approve the process timelines; and approve the 2010 Local Bill regarding the Orange-Alamance boundary line. Commissioner Yuhasz asked that John Roberts address his earlier concerns, but he will still vote in favor of this. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff from both counties for all of the work they did on this. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports a. Heritaqe Center Work Group Report The Board received the final report from the 2009 Heritage Center Work Group and considered next steps. Barbara Baker, the Heritage Center Work Group Facilitator, recognized the members of this work group and the consultant, Barbara Taylor. She said that they are encouraging the Board to consider exploring the development of an additional heritage resource and authorize the Orange County Public Library to work with the North Carolina Heritage Center project to begin that process. The suggestion is that the Rebecca Wall money could be used as possible seed money or matching money for grants. She asked that the County Commissioners support the Historical Foundation of Hillsborough to take over the Heritage Center. She also asked the County Commissioners to authorize County management to partner with the Town of Hillsborough to find some expanded space for the Orange County History Museum, because this agency could take on the Heritage Center. Frank Clifton said that this committee recognizes that it has completed its work and the committee can be sunset. The County Commissioners thanked the work group for all of this work. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve the recommendations: 1. Explore the development of a digital heritage resource, as indicated in the abstract, as an initial step toward providing access to Countywide historical documents, artifacts, and archives; 2. Authorize the funds from the Rebecca B. Wall bequest to be allocated as $5,000 for seed money for initial projects and $20,000 be used as matches for grants over the next 4 years; 3. Authorize County management to continue its efforts with the Town of Hillsborough and the Foundation to achieve expanded programming space and allow for the development of heritage center services for both residents and visitors to the County; and 4. Approve the sunsetting of the Heritage Center Work Group, having completed its original charge from the Board of Commissioners on June 30, 2010. VOTE: UNANIMOUS � b. Recommendations from the Economic Development Commission on Economic Development The Board received recommendations from the Economic Development Commission on economic development as outlined in the Commission's six-year implementation strategy and FY 2010-11 budget request. Kathleen Ferguson, Chair of the Economic Development Commission, made a PowerPoint presentation. Investinq in Our Future Strategic Recommendations: Places, Tools, and Knowledge Orange County Economic Development Commission Estimated Financial Impact: Fiscal Years 2010/2011 — 2015/2016 Budget Request: Fiscal Year 2010/2011 During the great recession of 2008 and 2009, our region has received $3.1 Billion in private investment- $1.9 billion received last year alone. UNC received more than $1.4 billion R&D funding - $716 million last year alone. Home to almost 7% of the region's residents, Orange County's share of this economic investment was negligible — 0$ and negative net jobs in 2009. Had Orange County's share equalied its population percentage, we would have received over $134 million. This lost potential, when contrasted with the County's widening residential/commercial tax gap has not surprisingly raised the issue of economic development to the forefront. Orange County is home to numerous CEOs, COOs, CFOs, and other executives. It is time to become home to their businesses also. The question the Economic Development Commission has spent the past year addressing is: what steps should Orange County take to reverse the county's revenue and jobs slide and engage with investors and decision-makers who are clearly willing and able to invest in the region. Having spent a year of fact-finding and exploring needs expressed by the decision-makers themselves, the EDC has identified a critical path towards increasing Orange County's options for attracting and retaining healthy, growing businesses. Estimated Financial Impact: Fiscal Years 2010/2011 — 2015/2016 $2.3 million plus developing the UDO $ plus NC Department of Commerce Certified Site status for Buckhorn EDD + 100% water, wastewater, and other infrastructure to Eno EDD Budget Request: Fiscal Year 2010/2011 $525,000 in new spending - $500,000 for cap/recap of tools, $25,000 to continue investment in research. Context - Investing in Revenue-Producing Assets Allows County to invest in programs valued by its citizens o Economic Development is the only tool available to local governments that are capable of increasing revenues, jobs, and wealth - Invest in County Revenue-Producing Assets First o Revenue-Producing capital o Ongoing revenue stream - Focus on Low-Hanging Fruit First o Local Entrepreneurs and Established Businesses � o Businesses of Current and Incoming Residents o Established Industry Clusters - Eliminate Silos and Barriers o Open up to regional best practices o Actives responsiveness to investor needs Our recommendations follow some tried and true maxims which are good for households, businesses, and government, alike: Failing to plan is planning to fail; you can't help others unless your own well-being is taken care of first; it takes resources to grow resources; educate yourself by interacting with experts — reinventing the wheel is never effective, and base decisions on current data, best practices. The proposed investment in the places, tools, and knowledge proposed tonight and found in our recommendations and white paper is how the EDC has expressed these basic principles in relation to economic development interests. Economic Development Critical Path Elements Places —Tools — Knowledge Like the mobius triangle, the three elements-Places, Tools, and Knowledge, inextreicably comprise the critical path necessary for economic development to take root and prosper. The more prolonged and shallower the implementation, the longer it will be before Orange County can increase revenues from the commercial tax base and the longer before the county can set itself on a healthy fiscal course. Before ANY economic development can occur, there must be a place for it to occur and the space must meet the needs of investor funding the business' growth or expansion. With there being a greater supply of sites and facilities than businesses demand, shovel-ready sites are seen as a given, with certified sites becoming the norm, more and more. Therefore, the sooner Orange County converts the unimproved land in the EDDs to certified sites, the sooner it will be transformed into a revenue-producing asset. The needs of individual businesses starting up, expanding, and coming into the area vary widely. To engage investors funding these start-ups, expansions, and relocations, local governments must have the tools and flexibility to retain and recruit. Again, there are more locations than sites and from a business point of view, economic development is a buyer's market, especially in our region. Third, our region is home to some of the most innovative, progressive businesses and leaders in the world. The State of North Carolina, the Research Triangle Regional Partnership, and local universities offer a wealth of data, analysis, best practice, lessons learned, expert, and creative knowledge — and the resources to take them from idea to implementation. Accordingly, we recommend that the county systematically and regularly engage with this readily available knowledge and expertise. The next few slides address specific actions Orange County should take to accelerate this critical path towards prosperity and economic health. Places: Shovel- and Business-Ready � •Available, Pre-Designated Land -3 Economic Development Districts Totaling 2,450 Acres along the I-85 Corridor •Core Recommendation -Commit the county to bringing water and wastewater infrastructure to the Buckhorn and Eno EDDs -Within a timeframe that establishes confidence with developers, investors and business owners PLACES - Proximity to air and interstate transportation, proximity to a skilled work force, proximity to university R&D centers, proximity to residential and cultural amenities are highly prized assets that Orange County shares with our contiguous and regional counties, making Orange County one of many possible locations for a business to start, grow, or locate to. Moreover, Orange County is surrounded by an abundance of shovel-ready and certified sites located outside of our borders, for Orange County's EDDs to be seen on part with available sites in Alamance, Chatham, Durham, and Wake counties, Orange County must invest in bringing water and wastewater infrastructure to the Buckhorn and Eno Economic Development Districts (EDDs) within a timeframe that establishes confidence with developers, investors, and business owners. The county cannot continue to expect developers to invest in basic infrastructure when there are so many shovel-ready sites available with attractive proximities and 90 days or fewer permitting processes. Tools: Time, Expense Reduction, Predictability •Time and Predictability •Capitalize a $250,000 business recruitment and retention fund •Re-capitalize the small business loan fund with 250 000 •Identify dedicated fundinq source for recurrinq annual investments in the local economic development tool kit. •Adopt a Unified Development Ordinance •Within a timeframe that establishes confidence with developers, investors, and business owners •results in less time from application to permit approval in a time-frame that is comparable with neighboring jurisdictions Unfortunately, it takes more effort and resources to overcome a negative reputation than to build up an unknown or neutral reputation. After years of charting our own course counter to industry standards, Orange County's unwanted, but not undeserved, business-unfriendly reputation is formidable BUT it can be overcome with decisive, speedy, highly-visible, direct investment into the three things that any business requires, regardless of industry, size, or scale requirements. These three things are time, reduced expenses, and predictability. The tools that can deliver these and which are under the control of local governments are clear: consistent regulations facilitating streamlined permitting and fund allocation, small business loan funds, recruitment and retention funds for established businesses, and a long-term reliable funding source dedicated to � reliable funding source dedicated to endowing these two funds on an annual basis. Knowledge: Current Data, Expert Analysis, Best Practices •Increase collaboration and engagement with the Research Trianqle Reqional Partnership •Invest in value-adding economic development-related research performed by UNC, NC State, Duke, NC Biotechnology Center •Enter into a one-year research contract with economic development specialists at UNC-Chapel Hill in 2010, with annual follow-on data acquisition, analysis, and strateqic planninq research contracts each year through FY 2016 One of Orange County's least-recognized assets is being in the heart of a region that is in the planet's top 3, 5, and 10 in 11 major industry clusters and even more sub-clusters. Another under-utilized asset is our proximity to RTRP, RTP, and UNC; organizations comprised of some of the world's most successful, innovative, and cutting edge leaders whose expertise is based on data, analysis, and experience. Whereas the state of North Carolina and many of its counties have taken advantage of RTRP's, RTP's, and UNC's world-class economic development expertise, Orange County has not. As a result, policy makers have not had consistent and thorough access to key data and metrics nor have we utilized benchmarks to monitor results or studied best practices to inform our policies. None of this data collection or analyses can occur without funding. Moreover, without ongoing engagement by Orange County policy-makers with RTRP, RTP, and UNC experts, there is no basis for two-way information sharing. Expected Results •Increase # UNC Spin-Offs locating in OC •Increase # of 10-100 Employee Businesses (Re)Locating in OC •Increase Private Sector Job Creation •Increase Non-Residential Tax Collections (Gross and Percent of Total) •Data-Driven Performance Local universities have spun off numerous companies and industries. Examples include SAS and Quintiles, products of NC State and UNC, respectively, both of which were started by university professors spawned global billion dollar industries. Each year, UNC's Carolina Entrepreneurial Initiative serves as the springboard for a variety of viable businesses. The most recent crop includes 25 showcased in the CEI's 6th annual business plan competition held in March. Representing customers and markets across the globe, the focus of these entrepreneurs spans beyond Orange County's borders, yet all also represent opportunities for Orange County to court and support as long-term local businesses. Even as start-ups and entrepreneurs abound, even more established business opportunities are within Orange County's grasp — if their needs are met. Whereas start-ups offer long-term potential, established business offer immediate opportunities on a larger scale, many of which employ 10+, 20+, even 100+ people and offer benefits beyond the reach of young or lifestyle businesses. Speaking with any realtor will involve numerous examples of CEOs, CFOs, COOs, CIOs, and other executives who have relocated here and who continue to choose Orange County for their personal residences while also choosing other counties as the location for their � for their business. Investing in applicant-friendly, streamlined permitting, infrastructure, and tools tailored to entrepreneurs and established businesses, and locating in Orange County will begin to qualify as a sensible business decision. The EDC contends that a thorough grounding in economic analysis and other data-driven considerations will be required to gain the results desired in terms of business start-ups, retention, expansion, and recruitments. As with any endeavor, the quality of a decision is only as good as the data and analysis informing and supporting it. Moreover, Orange County will achieve only what it measures, which is why ongoing metrics and benchmarking is critical. We therefore see the research prong of these recommendations as being critical to the overall success of this endeavor to launch a multi-year investment in economic development on behalf of Orange County. IF NEEDED: Examples of industry-standard metrics include: - Number of qualified inquiries - Increased hit rate (number of wins gained from total number of inquiries) - Increased strike rate (value of wins from estimated total value represented by inquiries) - # of local university start-ups established in Orange County and verified to have remained in Orange County over time - # of existing local businesses who expand and remain in Orange County over time - # of relocating businesses choosing Orange County whose managers/executives/employees have chosen Orange County as home - Annual measure of residential/non-residential tax ration - Total value of private capital invested in Orange County - Total number of private sector jobs created - Number of private sectorjobs by Orange County socio-economic strata Investment Commitment FY 2010 — 2011 Economic Development Department The EDC shares the goal of increasing the County's non-residential tax base. As such, we unshakably believe that the County must commit to investing in economic development not as a single year but as an ongoing permanent investment. To assist the BOCC in implementing specific, measurable, attainable, and realistic actions in a timely manner, the EDC is requesting line item budget allocations in the upcoming year's budget. In addition, we have provided a six-year estimate to help the BOCC and County Manager anticipate and plan for the general investment levels that will be required moving forward. FY 10-11 Budget: Economic Development Department •$500,000 request for economic development tools over and above last year's funding of $0 in this category. •$25,000 request for economic development research over and above last year's funding of 0$ in this category. Over the past 12 months, Orange County's $75,000 small business fund was sufficient to support two local businesses: Santosa, a local commercial cleaning service company and PhD, a local recreational flying disc company that the Economic Development Department was able to � able to leverage into international recognition by MSNBC. However, the funds are fully allocated, with numerous local businesses eager to participate whenever additional funding becomes available. Based on this history as well as the experience of small business funds available in Durham and Chatham counties, we recommend Orange County's small business fund be recapitalized. However, Orange County also needs a retention and recruitment fund designed to meet the needs of established local businesses who are expanding or incoming businesses who want to locate here and who likely will end up employing county residents or whose managers/executives will call Orange County home. Equally important, these funds must be administered with flexibility without lengthy, complex, or onerous procedures. Lastly, quality research capable of supporting cluster, R&D, gap, or revenue stream analyses requires both faculty and student involvement. Unlike this past year's student papers, which was pro bono and involved limited scope and time investment, cluster/R&D/gap/and funding stream analysis substantive research effort is provided only on a fee basis ranging from $25,000 to $250,000 or more. The total financial impact of this investment is <0.04% of the total county budget for FY 2010- 2011. Although Streamlined Permitting and the UDO are under the auspices of the Planning Department, the EDC views it as a critical path requirement for economic development, thus we recommend that the county invest staffing and resources necessary to achieve these in a timeframe that inspires confidence and trust among investors, site selection decision-makers, and the development community. Secondly, while extending full water/wastewater infrastructure into Buckhorn and Eno EDDs and satisfying all criteria required for NC Department of Commerce Site Certification are critical path elements, much of this investment also will be under the auspices of the Planning Department. Although the EDC's extended budget estimates the general magnitude of the investment required, to many unknowns exist to set expectations for a firm figure. FY 10-11 thru FY15-16 Estimated Economic Development Department Places •Estimate for Buckhorn EDD ($4,400,0000) •Eno EDD Engineering and Build-Out (TBD) •NC Department of Commerce Site Certification (TBD) Tools - Business retention, recruitment, and loan funds ($2,000,000) - Completion/implementation of County Unified Development Ordinance (TBD) Knowledge - RTRP Dues, Intra-County Collaboration Events, Focused Research, and Strategic Planning 300 000 Total = $6.7 million + Eno EDD + UDO We anticipate that the engineering, build-out, and NC DOC site certification will require 36-48 months at best, assuming no delays for Buckhorn EDD alone. Given the state of negotiations with Durham, we anticipate that it will require up to 72 months for engineering, build-out, and NC � NC DOC site certification for Eno EDD. Thus the EDC addressed a six-year timeframe for our strategic recommendations and within which to estimate the "order of magnitude" of the required investment in a comprehensive set of Economic Development activities. With Orange County being one of the top 10 start-up centers in the country, we anticipate that there will be strong demand by talented entrepreneurs for small business loans the county can provide, especially since the credit squeeze is expected to impact entrepreneurs for the coming years. Similarly, with RTP continuing to be a magnet for incoming executives and businesses, and with the competition for those businesses expected to increase, we anticipate that Orange County will need more — not fewer— options for reducing time and expenses required by established businesses to expand or locate in Orange County. Our estimates for research and analysis funding is based on current cost estimates provided by UNC research faculty, combined with actual expenditures invested by Chatham and other neighboring counties for the cluster/R&D/gap/funding stream analyses and strategic planning. In summary, based on current information available, we estimate that Orange County will need to invest roughly $11 million over six years, with about 80% supporting water/wastewater build-out, approximately 20% supporting a basic economic development tool kit, and less than 5% for data acquisition and analysis. Note that with respect to infrastructure financing, there are both matching funds and alternative public-private financing mechanisms, such as Tax Increment Financing, that can substantially reduce Orange County's share of the total investment in water and wastewater infrastructure. Although the estimates stated here are not exact, they point to the order of magnitude of the funding required to transform the virtually empty EDD land into revenue-producing assets. Failing to do so will cause Orange County to continue to be bypassed by private investors for surrounding counties for years if not decades. Conclusion Business Tip From the Amish "[Businesses] will tell you what they want and how to sell it, if you listen. You "listen" in different ways: by scrutinizing sales statistics, by reading news and industry publications, and by old- fashioned asking. You may have to put aside your ego." Borrowed from Erik Wesner, Success Made Simple, An Inside Look at Why Amish Businesses Thrive For the better part of the year, the EDC has reached out to business, asked what they need and want, and has listened. And indeed, each time business leaders speak, they tell us clearly what they want and how Orange County can offer the solutions to these needs. We have sought out and evaluated the statistics: the total market (3.1 B+) Orange County's share (0), the produce that business is in the market for: shovel- and business-ready space as well as tools that reduce time, expense, and unpredictability. We have strived to do so without ego, seeking data and best practices used by those recognized worldwide as leaders and to those who have achieved results. The produce of this effort is the critical path summarized in this presentation. As a parting consideration, we realize it will be unprecedented for the Commissioners to endorse � endorse – and fund –these recommendations and that it will be tempting to stick to business as usual with respect to the county's economic development policies. At the same time, it is the EDC's responsibility to advise the Board of the likely outcomes of its choices from the perspective of those who have the means, ability, and opportunity to invest their resources in the county. We understand that sticking with what's known is sometimes more comfortable than making changes – even when we know that the known will not help us achieve our objectives. Yet, it is in these times that change is most needed. Failing to endorse and fund these recommendations will strongly signal businesses and citizens alike that Orange County remains welcoming to residents who are business owners and executives while maintaining barriers to private investment in commercial enterprise. Without BOCC funding of these recommendations, Orange County's economic development policies will continue to perpetuate the status quo, and Orange County will continue to rank lowest or near lowest in private commercial investment and job creation, rank highest or near highest in residential taxes and will continue to rank high in the gap between the standards of living between the wealthiest and poorest of its resident families within the entire 13-county RTRP region for the foreseeable future. We do not believe these outcomes are in keeping with Orange County values or long-term fiscal health. This year is a year of hard choices. There are no easy solutions. And, there is no way to avoid pain. We believe by endorsing and funding these recommendations the County will set itself up to being substantially increasing its revenue and therefore its program funding and service delivery capacity for years to come. Thank you. Remarks delivered to Board of County Commissioners from Anita Badrock, former Economic Development Commission Board Chair 32 year resident of Orange County, NC May 18, 2010 at BOCC meeting and presentation on Economic Development Chairman Foushee and Members of the Board of County Commissioners, Thank you so much for allowing us as members of the Economic Development Commission to come before you this evening and put a lot of data and information in front of you explaining what we believe it's going to take to have a successful long term economic development program. I know you have lots of information in your packet which you will review and carefully consider. This report was researched and prepared entirely by the volunteers of the Economic Development Commission, without the use of any staff resources or time. This is important for you t o know for two reasons—first, a group of busy volunteer citizens thought this was important enough to spend hundreds of hours working on it, and the second is that I hope you will find it important enough to direct your staff to continue and expand on this work. I wanted to speak to you because over my 30 years of residency here I've worn a lot of hats that have given me more than a cursory understanding of our community. Here are some of the vantage points from which I have gleaned my education about our county: ---as a mother, an � mother, an active volunteer in the school system, as a public health nutritionist working in the local WIC program, a multi-unit small business owner, a volunteer and board member for more than a dozen social service agencies, a leader in the local Chamber of Commerce, a leader of the EDC, a UNC volunteer, and as a recruiter who for 10 years worked with local businesses and nonprofits to find employees and also worked with local residents to find jobs closer to home. Currently I work for Community Home Trust, an affordable housing home ownership program that is selling more homes than probably just about anyone in the county right now, because, despite the recession, homes on the local private market are still too expensive for our clients to buy with the incomes they earn in our county. So, I feel pretty confident in making these statements: • Diversifying and expanding our economic development is the one big thing that Orange County can do to help the all the people that I've met in the roles I've had in this community. • Investing in our own economic health is the key to improving our ability to fund our social, environmental, and educational initiatives. • Investing in our own economic security is the only way to provide a funding legacy that doesn't balance the budget on the backs of our homeowners, some of whom struggle to pay a tax bill that has risen at a much higher rate than their incomes for a long time. You've heard a lot of big numbers, long timelines, and complex statistics. Those are important in making good, data driven decisions about how to invest limited resources for best effect. But the most compelling information data about the need for paying attention to and investing in economic development has already been presented tonight, and that was your county budget. That message was loud and clear---it's time to pay attention to and do something to secure our county's long term economic health. It's clear that now is the time for our county to re-invest some of its resources in itself--- to improve its own long term economic well being. We are asking you, as the stewards of our county, • To fund improvements in the infrastructure of our existing raw assets —the Economic Development Districts -- to improve their desirability in the marketplace; • To provide resources to retain existing businesses and recruit complementary ones, and • To fund research that will allow us to make strategic, targeted decisions. These are things that businesses do every day to ensure their long term economic vitality and survival, and implementing these same strategies will achieve the same goals for our county. I'd like to close by telling you a personal story that I think illustrates in a very simple way what I am talking about. I recently sold a home I owned. I first listed it "as is" for what had been the appraised value only a year earlier. Much to my surprise and amazement, nobody bought it. My realtor said, "Honey the market is telling you something. This house isn't as valuable to possible buyers as you think it is. Now do you want to sell it or not? " � So I lowered the price---still "as is." Still no takers. The realtor said: well, obviously "as is" is not "as buyers want" in this market, even at a cheaper price. So, do you want my advice on how to sell this house? Well, obviously I did, so I had to take the next step, which meant putting some cash on the table. That was tough to swallow. I didn't have a lot of cash, and it was very hard for me to put some of it into improving a house that had no buyers and had already cost me a lot in carrying costs. However, I pulled together about 20,000 to fix the house up; doing those things that potential buyers who had seen the house had said should be done if they were going to buy it. The 20K wound up helping the house sell for 40K more than the lowered "as is" price. Now somebody could have bought the house "as is," spent 20K and saved themselves 20K. That's what I would have done if I had been buying, it is certainly what I would consider most logical, but I wasn't buying the house; I was trying to sell it. So I had to listen to the buyers, not to myself, and do what they suggested it would take to get them to buy the house. What the buyers for this product wanted was something that was already fixed up, and they were willing to spend more money to save themselves time and hassle and walk into a predictable, turnkey situation. And it worked for me too---I made 20K more than I expected because I put some of my own money in up front. But I first had to take the risk, and I didn't do that until I had been unsuccessful doing it my way. I think it's clear that Orange County has tried over the past years to conduct economic development "our way." We see the results, which haven't been very good by all the statistical measures comparing us to our neighbors—an increasing reliance on residential property taxes and missed opportunities to fully participate in the robust growth of the Research Triangle Park. But that was yesterday. This is today. Today we have the opportunity to learn from the past, but move forward into the future. Today we have 2450 acres of contiguous undeveloped land in the Economic Development Districts. We have a diverse labor force that spans the skills spectrum. Our proximity to major transportation and distribution corridors and resources has only become more valuable as similar properties around us are developed and removed from available inventory. It's the right time to do something different---if we're serious about "selling this house." The next step is going to involve spending some money. This plan is a clear and basic approach that leverages our current assets and makes smart investments to strengthen our long term economic health. I encourage the county to insert the EDC's three new proposed line items into the budget that funds this and future year's economic development efforts. Sincerely, Anita Badrock Anita Badrock Former Chair, Economic Development Commission 32 year Orange County resident � Commissioner Yuhasz thanked the EDC for all of the work they put into this report. He said that he was glad the Manager has recommended funding the small business loan again. He would like to find funds to apply to recruitment and retention. Commissioner Pelissier thanked the EDC and the UNC students as well for this report. She fully endorsed having a work session with the EDC in the near future. She said that the retail sales issue is something she would like to have more discussion about and this is one area that they need to flush out more. Kathleen Ferguson said that the EDC is also very conscious that Alamance County has put a lot of resources into the retail market and this does impact the overall size of the market for Orange County. PUBLIC COMMENT: Margaret Cannell, Executive Director of Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce, said that they are very interested in economic growth, which has been stagnant for the past several years. She said that the Chamber of Commerce is in support of the EDC recommendations. Bonnie Hauser said that she would love to see the County invest some money in economic development. She asked if all the EDDs were the same and how Orange County would differentiate their assets from other community's assets. It is unclear to her how the UDO clarifies the impediments to permitting in Orange County. She asked about the role of the County versus the developer and how developers could be attracted before making huge investments. She asked if there were alternatives for different kinds of investment models. Commissioner Gordon thanked the EDC for all of their work and said that she would like more time to study the information. Chair Foushee said that the Manager's recommendation is to have a work session on this item. The Board agreed. b. Automatic External Defibrillator(AED) Report The Board received a report regarding the current status of Automatic External Defibrillators installed in County facilities and considered recommending the development of a policy and plan to upgrade current and future installations. Emergency Services Director Frank Montes de Oca summarized the information in the abstract. To maximize the impact of the limited funding for the program, initial efforts will be focused on publicly accessed facilities such as the Whitted Building, Hillsborough Commons, libraries, and other County buildings where significant public use occurs. Fully funding the recommended group of AEDs to adequately cover facilities would cost approximately $60,000. It could be phased in over three years, if needed. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve items 1 and 3 in the Manager's Recommendation: - Upgrade all current AEDs more than 6 years old or not functioning properly to current specifications (cost $12,000); - Review an Orange County AED ordinance to be presented at the August 17, 2010 regular BOCC meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS � Commissioner Hemminger said that she went to a presentation at a school board meeting of a national company that gives special prices for school systems to buy defibrillators. The goal is to have one at each school. Item 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to phase in item 2 over a three-year period, which is to purchase AEDs to cover all remaining/new facilities within three years. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 9. County Manaqer's Report Frank Clifton said that the 2010 Orange County Complete Count Committee has completed its work and has now been sunset. The national participation rate was 72%. The statewide average was 74%, which is up from 66% in 2000. For Orange County, the participation rate was 78%, which is up from 70% in 2000. Only seven counties scored higher in participation in Orange County, with 80% being the highest rate. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said that the deadline for filing the information for the Orange/Alamance County line is tomorrow. He will be contacting everyone involved tomorrow about the changes. 11. Appointments-NONE 12. Board Comments Commissioner Nelson — none Commissioner Gordon distributed a map of the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study Area as part of her report on what happened at the most recent TAC meeting. She made reference to the map and highlighted the light rail construction. She said that the NC 54 Corridor Study is so important because $347 million of the expenditure in the county transit plan is in this corridor. She will keep the County Commissioners up to date on this study. Commissioner Hemminger— none Commissioner Pelissier said that there was a school collaboration meeting today and the OCS suggested having a joint letter from both school systems and the Board of County Commissioners to the General Assembly asking them to increase funding for K-12. She asked the Board to approve sending this letter. Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners could sign onto the letter of the other school boards. All agreed. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a tour of the Bingham Animal research center. There was a good opportunity to ask questions and walk the property. He said that it seemed evident that the people put in charge of the facility are not the ones that have made some of the unfortunate decisions that had adversely affected the environment or had resulted in bad planning. He was encouraged that there was a different consciousness and intent to do things right, follow state and local rules, work with the neighbors, and try and minimize the impacts on neighbors. Commissioner Jacobs said that he found out this week at a meeting of the Sportsplex Advisory Committee that last year some veterans groups requested that the Sportsplex consider a discount for veterans. The Sportsplex has now adopted a 30% discount for any veteran and this has not been publicized. He asked that this be publicized. � Commissioner Yuhasz thanked the Manager for bringing a budget with no tax increase. Chair Foushee said that she heard at the Social Services Board meeting yesterday that the subsidized employment program has placed 24 individuals, 15 of which are Work First individuals and 9 of those are people that are 200% of the poverty level. 13. Information Items • Orange WeIINet Project Update • Environmental Responsibility Goal • May 6, 2010 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 14. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to go into closed session at 10:28 p.m. for the purpose of: "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to reconvene into open session at 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board