Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-13-2010 APPROVED 5/18/2010 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION April 13, 2010 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mike Nelson COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Willie Best and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 1. Proposed Master Plan for Future New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that this is a master plan for a park that has no funding. Open Space Design Specialist Marabeth Carr also made the PowerPoint presentation. Future New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm April 13, 2010 Background •152-acre property acquired at end of 2001 •Frontage on New Hope Church Road, NC 86 (and 1-40!) •1988 Parks Plan envisioned a park nearby (New Hope/University Station Park) •Formerly a general purpose farm (Herbert and Alice Blackwood since 1906) Characteristics of the Site •Strategically located between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill — excellent access •House (ca 1827) and several farm outbuildings •Old Chapel Hill-Hillsborough roadbed still exists, runs through property •Three-acre pond •New Hope Church Road scenic vista (1500 feet) •Multiplicity of resources in one site! Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities •Access, scenic views •Proximity to schools •Farmstead complex •Historic roadbed, cemetery, arch. sites •Orchard and forest areas •Natural Heritage Sitej Challenges • Driveway and noise • Adjacent residences • Scenic views, historic & archaeological resources • Existing structures • Natural area and streams The Draft Master Plan •Preliminary Concept Plan •14-member citizen committee appointed to develop master plan •Committee met seven times, participated in site walks, visits to other parks, email informational list-serve Findings •Themes (agriculture heritage, environmental education, cultural resources, low-impact recreation, natural resources) •School/park interaction •Understanding of heritage (natural, agricultural) •Farmstead focus •Work around scenic vistas, roadbed •Green exhibits, buildings •NC 86 pedestrian crossing? •Ag demonstration, community gardens •Nature Center Facility Recommendations •Amphitheatre (3 possible locations) •Community Gardens •"Learning Center" and playground •Multi-purpose field •Loop hiking trails, bike trail •Fishing Dock •Picnic shelters •Ag demonstration plots •Retain and enhance the orchard •Old cemetery— signage and protect Issues for Further Study •Pedestrian and bike access (especially to nearby schools) — need to engage NCDOT •Preservation and eventual use of farmstead buildings? Ongoing stabilization. •Consider adding to the site to address pedestrian access, natural area •Protection of the old roadbed offsite? •Develop report on limited public access? Recommendations •Thank Master Plan Committee for its work •Provide feedback on the master plan •Instruct staff on whether to develop report on possible interim/limited operations? (CIP = 2016 projected completion??) •Change working title to "Future Blackwood Farm Park" to minimize confusion Commissioner Gordon arrived at 7:17 PM. Commissioner Gordon said that it is a beautiful park with a house and with historic features. She said that this park is ready to go except that there is no funding. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a very modest plan for this site. It was suggested to use this as a place to teach sustainable agriculture. Also, it was discussed to have a nature center at this park. Commissioner Pelissier said that she really liked the general outline of the plan with its natural and cultural resources. She asked if there was a plan to apply for national registries and where people would park if they have events here. Dave Stancil said that for past festivals, they used a shuttle service from nearby schools. For the jazz festival, there was parking on site. Regarding the national registry, he said that this is something that he could pursue. Frank Clifton asked if the Board wanted to accept the new proposed name for this project, "Future Blackwood Farm Park". Commissioner Hemminger asked about the pros and cons of opening this area up for access for low-key recreation. Frank Clifton said that, without a formalized process with controls, there are more chances for liabilities. It would need to be a regulated process. There is no organized oversight of this property now. Commissioner Hemminger said that Durham County put up signs at their facilities so the public would use a park but would know that the County is not responsible. John Roberts said that notices are useful but if there is not a regular County presence then they would have to put up sign notices. Dave Stancil said that they would want to discourage people from the buildings due to the conditions of the older facilities. Frank Clifton said that he can look at this and come back with suggested parameters. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County has other undeveloped park properties and if the County Commissioners adopt a policy for this one, they would need to do so for all of the properties. He also asked about whether anyone has looked at the need for future improved athletic fields and if there are places to put them. He does not want to preclude that for this park, since there will be a need in the future. Dave Stancil said that there was some discussion about whether there could be fields at this site. There is no plan for these types of fields yet. He said that there are active stewardship plans for this park. Commissioner Hemminger said that the national average is one athletic field for every 5,000 people and Orange County is way under. Commissioner Jacobs said that at this juncture the Board could adopt a proposed plan and could always amend it at a later date in reference to the athletic fields. He would like to see a sign put up as to the new name of this park and that it is owned by Orange County. He would like to open this park up to supervised groups, such as a cross country team that approached him about his property at Moorefields. Also, he said that the County Commissioners have talked repeatedly about having caretakers living in these park buildings and maintaining a presence. Dave Stancil said that some of the houses on these sites are in good condition, but others, like this one, are not and are in need of a lot of repairs, which would be very expensive. Commissioner Jacobs said that there may be people who are oriented toward rehabbing a house. Also, Durham Tech is willing to teach rehabbing by using some of these facilities. Commissioner Gordon suggested posting the property now to address liability issues and letting organized groups such as track teams use the property under stated conditions. She said that the County Commissioners could adopt the master plan with the caveat that some of this would be subject to change. She agreed with the change of the name. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to see some mention that some areas may be suitable for more active recreation in the future. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to draw outlines for future athletic fields in what the County Commissioners adopt so that future Commissioners can see what they wanted. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested that in the future the northwest property could be used for more active athletic facilities. The Board agreed with proceeding as discussed above and with changing the working title. Dave Stancil said that staff would bring it back for approval with suggested changes. 2. Naming of New Department (ERCD/Soil and Water, Parks & Recreation) Frank Clifton said that the County is in the middle of a lot of reorganizations as they go through the budget process. The interactions of ERCD, Soil and Water, and Parks and Recreation seemed to blend naturally together for a conversion into one department. The departments merged together April 1st along with Grounds Maintenance from AMPS (Asset Management and Purchasing Services). Dave Stancil said that so far, all has gone well and they are starting to build lateral relationships. He said that the most complicated issue to date is to find a merged name since so many things are going at any given time in this department. Page two of the abstract has four suggested names: - Department of Environment and Parks (DEP) - Department of Environment, Parks and Agriculture (DEPA) - Parks, Agriculture and Resource Conservation Department (PARC) - Department of Environment, Parks and Recreation (DEPR) Commissioner Jacobs suggested Parks, Environment, Agriculture, and Recreation and the logo could be a pear. Commissioner Hemminger said that she liked the working title, Department of Environment, Parks and Recreation. Commissioner Gordon said that she liked the title Department of Environment and Parks because it is simple. She suggested not using abbreviations or initials when stating the department name. She would like any name that is picked to have Environment as the first name. Commissioner Pelissier said that she prefers Department of Environment and Parks because it is simple. She is hesitant to use Recreation since the towns have their own recreation departments. Chair Foushee said that she prefers Department of Environment, Parks and Recreation (DEPR) because the County is going through a process where the public is not sure what it is doing. She wants to be as clear as possible about what the County is offering and how people can access it. She would like to be clear that recreation is a priority. Commissioner Jacobs said that DEPR could also include an `A' for agriculture. He does not want agriculture to get lost in this. Commissioner Gordon said that she sees agriculture more as economic development, so she prefers Environment and Parks first, and Environment, Parks and Recreation second. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to select Department of Environment, Parks, and Recreation. There was further discussion. Commissioner Hemminger accepted an amendment from Commissioner Jacobs to add "Agriculture" as the second word and select Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon) Commissioner Nelson was not here. 3. Jordan Lake Partnership Update Dave Stancil invited Tom Davis, Water Resources Coordinator, to make a PowerPoint presentation. PowerPoint included only maps. The information is summarized below: The Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) was formed in 2009 by several jurisdictions in the Triangle area with the main purpose of jointly planning for the sustainable future use of the water supply available in Jordan Lake. Attachment 1 lists the members involved in the JLP, including Orange County, as well as the objectives of this group. This partnership is committed to working together to access and use the region's water supply in a secure, sustainable manner. This is to be done through coordinated planning, system interconnectedness and through water conservation and efficiency measures. It is also an objective of the JLP to demonstrate that different local governments can work together to pursue a common goal — "to create environmentally sustainable, secure and mutually beneficial water supply strategies for Jordan Lake." The water stored in Jordan Lake, which is controlled by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR), is allocated to different "pools" for planning purposes: flood control storage, conservation storage, and sediment storage. Conservation storage represents approximately 6% of the total water present in the lake when the lake is full. Of this 6% pool, only 1/3 is available for water supply purposes; the remainder is committed to downstream flow augmentation to insure a minimum stream flow is maintained at Lillington, NC. Water that is removed from the lake for water supply purposes does not affect the amount of water that is reserved for downstream flow augmentation. Three rounds of Jordan Lake water supply allocations have been completed by DWR, with the first taking place in the late 1980s. At the conclusion of the third round of allocations, 63 million gallons per day (MGD) of the approximately 100 MGD available were allocated. Orange County has held a 1 MGD Level II allocation since 1988. Level I allocations are provided based on 20 year water need projections and when withdrawals are planned to begin within five years of obtaining an allocation. Level II allocations (Orange County currently has these) are made based on longer term needs of up to 30 years. Attachment 2 lists the jurisdictions and utilities which currently have Jordan Lake water supply allocations. The JLP formerly asked the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to reopen the water supply allocation process in late 2009. DWR held a Public Information meeting concerning Round 4 of the Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation process on February 24, 2010. At this meeting, DWR staff discussed the procedures they intend to follow during the allocation request process. DWR requested potential applicants for Jordan Lake water to submit a "Letter of Interest" by April 1, 2010. This "Letter of Interest" does not represent a commitment to obtaining an allocation or to using water from Jordan Lake, rather it is to identify potential applicants and assist with the basin water supply planning process. Information on the Jordan Lake Allocation process and Orange County's Allocation Request are provided in Attachment 3. DWR anticipates that the allocation process could continue through late 2010, longer if InterBasin Transfer (IBT) certificates are needed. A number of steps remain to be completed prior to allocation, as shown in the attachment. These include reexamining the safe yield of Jordan Lake, climate change impacts, and updating the Cape Fear Basin Hydrologic Model. County staff has been working with the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) to develop basic information about a future Orange County allocation request. As previously sated, the County has held a 1 MGD allocation for Jordan Lake water since 1988. Since Orange County does not own or operate a water system, nor does it plan to do so, any delivery of Jordan Lake water to residents of the County must occur through a partner utility. Several potential partners exist: The City of Durham, the Towns of Hillsborough and Mebane, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Orange-Alamance Water System (OAWS). DWR has requested water demand estimates from applicants which project through 2060. DWR is also planning on having workshops after April 2010 at which it will present allocation application information. Draft County projections developed to date may be found in Attachment 4. Dave Stancil said that Orange County, as a stakeholder in this process, is the one entity that is not a water provider. As the County moves forward, there is a need to work with a partner organization. He said that decisions need to be made about the allocation and whether it needs to be increased. The Recommendations are to: - Receive information - Discuss proposed process and projections - Confirm pursuing allocation process (increased allocation? Retain current?) - Authorize Manager and staff to begin discussions with potential partners Craig Benedict made reference to Attachment 4 and said that allocations in the future could add up to 3 MGD 50 years from now. He said that this is an opportunity to plan ahead. Dave Stancil said that Orange County needs to remain a player at the table and needs to benefit from this since it works so hard to protect the water. He said that staff will probably come back in the fall with a proposal for increasing an allocation. He asked the County Commissioners to authorize the Manager and staff to begin discussions with partners. Commissioner Yuhasz asked how much it cost to have allocations and Dave Stancil said about $2,300 a year for a Level II allocation of 1 MGD. Frank Clifton said that Orange County is not in the utility business, but it is dependent on utilities for the economic development. Commissioner Jacobs asked if part of the County could have Level I and part could have Level II because of economic development districts, specifically in Durham. Craig Benedict said that dialogue is continuing with the City of Mebane and the City of Durham with regard to this. Commissioner Gordon suggested going with the staff recommendation. The Board agreed. 4. Amendment to Session Law 1987-460 Concerning Disclosures of Property and Business Interests of County Commissioners John Roberts said that this has been on the books since 1987. At the Orange County Board of Commissioners' request, legislation was introduced in the North Carolina general Assembly requiring Orange County Commissioners to disclose property and business interests that could be related to items that come before the Board of County Commissioners for decisions. The legislation was introduced by Representative Joe Hackney and became law. The intent of the legislation was to prevent impropriety by Commissioners and to encourage openness in Orange County Government. The language is in need of modification; however, none of the recommended modifications will have any negative impact on the original intent or purpose of the Act. John Roberts said that he has made some suggested changes and all of the additions are underlined, with one deletion in section 25. Commissioner Jacobs asked when this had to be done, especially in Section 19. Also, if a piece of property is added and then a County Commissioner subsequently takes office, this is not covered. John Roberts said that the timing is in Section 23 and it has to be done within 30 days of assuming office or within 30 days after the acquisition of a business interest or property interest. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if the Board wanted to repeal this legislation. John Roberts said that repealing is an option and there is nothing wrong with doing that, especially since the Board of County Commissioners is required by law to adopt an ethics code this year, and this will be on the May 20th agenda. He will recommend an adoption of a specific code and give options to add into it. At this time there are harsh punishments and he changed the language so that punishments are only imposed if there are willful violations of this rather than someone not knowing about the old law. He would suggest repealing this because the Board will have an ethics code that will be adopted within the next month. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would be happy to repeal this but she does not know how the delegation would address this in the short session. John Roberts said that the County Commissioners can take no action at this time because he knows about this and he will inform all when they are elected or reelected. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested asking for it to be repealed since it can give cause for a citizen to harass a Commissioner. Since no other county does this, then he sees no reason why Orange County should have this. John Roberts said that the County Commissioners should ask that it be repealed because the punishments under the bill would apply to anyone who forgets to do this and anyone who does not do it because they do not know about it; and this could lead to undue harassment. Commissioner Jacobs suggested repealing this after the Board adopts an ethics code and asking the Clerk to research the minutes from 1987. He has no problem with being held to a higher standard than other counties' Board of Commissioners, but he wants to adopt an ethics code first. John Roberts said that the ethics code would be ready for consideration for the May 20th meeting. All County Commissioners are in compliance at this time with the current law. The Board agreed. 5. Boards and Commissions — Procedures Commissioner Hemminger suggested coming up with another acronym than ABC for Advisory Boards and Commissions, because there is already an ABC Board. Chair Foushee suggested going through the decision points first. Decision Points for BOCC In the agenda materials, the Clerk had provided several decision points for the Board to consider, and they went through them in order. 1. BOCC Liaison: At the March 4th work session: A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz that the Board of County Commissioners not assign a particular liaison to the internal boards and commissions and that the County Commissioners will attend as they wish and make sure that there are not four County Commissioners at any one meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Decision Points: • Suggested process for BOCC attendance notification at committee meetings, to assure no violations of quorum restrictions: BOCC will notify clerk of attending an ABC meeting within 3 working business days of meeting. Commissioner Pelissier suggested implementing this at the same time as the annual work plan. She would like to send a letter to the boards explaining what is being done. She suggested doing this after the summer break. Commissioner Jacobs said that he liked that suggestion, however, the Board has only gone through nine boards and commissions and it has not received the pros and cons from the ones that it had asked for previously. He said that the Board needs to discuss the boards and commissions first, address the suggestions, options, pros and cons and there needs to be a complete process. The Board agreed to implement this decision on September 1, 2010. • Implementation Date: September 1, 2010 Commissioner Jacobs asked when the Board would finish discussing the boards/commissions and Chair Foushee said June 10th Commissioner Pelissier made reference to the quorum restrictions and suggested putting in the letter that the Board makes a commitment as the Board of County Commissioners that a Commissioner will not attempt to go to every single meeting of a particular board. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not know how this will work out. The problem from the point of view of the boards and commissions is that no one knows what will happen when the processes are changed. She suggested making the changes on September 1st and doing a pilot project to see what happens. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested having a calendar without names, but with all of the boards and commissions meetings. If there is a fourth County Commissioner that comes to the meeting, then that person would leave so that there is not a quorum. This is just for the internal boards and commissions. Frank Clifton said that perhaps four or more could attend as long as there was no deliberation and it would not constitute a County Commissioners' meeting. John Roberts disagreed and said that advisory boards and commissions meetings are for information and deliberation and it would be difficult to get around this if more than three County Commissioners were in attendance. Chair Foushee suggested leaving this as is for now as far as the number of County Commissioners attending a board/commission meeting. 2. Notification from ABCs ( Advisory Boards and Commissions) Currently, BOCC members/liaisons are on notification lists for many ABCs (Advisory Boards and Commissions). This would potentially include distribution of meeting materials prior to the meeting (emails and hard copies). Decision Point: • Should all BOCC members be added to all ABCs distribution or just not engage in emails shared by members of the ABCs? The Board agreed to be on email lists for all boards and commissions. This will also be implemented on September 1st. 3. Boards/Commissions the BOCC serves on The BOCC usually picks the ABCs they to serve on annually in January/February. Decision Points: • When does the BOCC want to choose their ABCs on which to serve? January/February 2011 ( external boards) • Or does the BOCC want to stay with the status quo (stay on current ABCs) until the reorganization of ABCs is completed? Yes —see above 4. Sunsetting of ABCs: Decision Points: • Who makes the decision to sunset ABCs? At the February 19th retreat, School of Government Consultant said that "ultimately it is the Board of County Commissioners' responsibility to decide to sunset". • If this is the case, who will notify the Clerk's office when an ABC needs to be sunset and put before the BOCC? BOCC (or Support Staff/Department Head) • Implementation Date: September 1, 2010 Commissioner Gordon said we should put a sunset date on each task force when it is created. John Roberts asked if this is what the Board wanted to do and the Board agreed. Language will be put in to reflect that there will be a sunset date set for each task force when formed. Commissioner Jacobs said that there were a few cases of task forces that staff wanted to leave on life support and the County Commissioners recommended that they be sunset. He said that it should be implicit or explicit that County Commissioners can suggest the sunset of an advisory board. Chair Foushee said that it should be explicit. The Board agreed that either staff or County Commissioners can bring forward a recommendation to sunset an ABC. 5. Quick Summary Report: Attachment 3 is a Quick Summary Report that a staff and/or member of an ABC could use to report back to the Clerk, who will then forward to the BOCC, as to what occurred at a particular ABC meeting. This would/could take place of the minutes and the Clerk's office would also keep a copy as we would do with minutes for public records compliance. This would need to be turned in to the Clerk within two (2) regular working days of an ABC meeting. Decision Points: • Does the Board want to proceed with the Quick Summary Report, which would replace the minutes (with the exception of statutory boards?) • Who should take the minutes at the ABCs? Support Staff or member of ABCs? • Implementation Date: Commissioner Gordon asked who this would apply to and it was answered that it was just internal, non-statutory boards. Commissioner Yuhasz said that if there are boards that are keeping minutes, he would like them to continue to keep the minutes. He does not need to see the minutes, but he would like to see the quick summary in addition to the minutes. The minutes will be sent to the Clerk and the quick summary reports will be sent to the Board of County Commissioners. John Roberts agreed and said that the boards and commissions should all be keeping minutes. Frank Clifton said that the minutes do not have to be verbatim and there should be a template for the minutes. He said that he is in the process of cutting mid-level administrative positions in County government, so there will not be staff support for these boards and commissions. He suggested that the ABCs have an appointed member to take the minutes/quick summary. John Roberts reiterated that verbatim minutes are not required, but only the description of what happened and the action taken. Donna Baker said that when she gets the packet together to send to the boards and commissions in the next few months, she will bring it forth to the Board for review. Chair Foushee said that it should be clear that a member of the board or commission would need to take the minutes and not a staff person, except for the statutory boards. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board used to have the Manager write an excerpt of a meeting where he and the Chair attended (smaller meetings) and Chair Foushee said that Frank Clifton is doing that now. Frank Clifton said that it is usually an email from him. Discussion ensued about having a designated person of each board and commission taking minutes and quick summaries. The alternative is to pay a staff person to take the minutes and this is expensive. Commissioner Yuhasz said that if the recording secretary is instructed to write the minutes in a short way, then it will serve the purpose of the short summary. When there is a statutory board that has to have more complete minutes, then there should be a separate quick summary. The Board agreed. 6. Annual Work Plan: At the March 4th work session:A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to ask the internal advisory boards to come up with a work plan every year, and then at the end of the year, to tell the Board of County Commissioners what has been accomplished with a summary. Commissioner Jacobs amended the motion that the work plan should be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Board of County Commissioners. Attachment 4: In the past (last time used 2005), this was distributed to all ABCs 2-4 months prior to the annual BOCC retreat (usually held in January); information distributed in Sept/Oct to be returned to the Clerk's office by the end of November. Decision Points: • Does the BOCC want to proceed with an annual work plan for the ABCs and to be distributed on this schedule above or another proposed schedule? Yes • Does the BOCC want to add/delete/edit the work plan before actual usage? Yes • Does the BOCC want ABC attendees to present an oral report to the full board at their annual retreat? No • Implementation Date: September 1, 2010 Craig Benedict said that he expects a lot of comprehensive plan implementation ideas coming forward from a lot of the boards and commissions and he would like for the work plan to include some cross-referencing for the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Pelissier agreed and said that there should be communication between the different advisory boards. Craig Benedict said that there is a form for the Planning Board that has a place for who else is involved. Commissioner Jacobs said that in the past the budget indicated what directions the department was going to go in the next year and this would be the logical thing to do for a work plan. He thinks that it ought to be explicit that advisory boards should not do listening sessions or seek public comment until it comes to the Board with it. Regarding the ABC attendees, Donna Baker said that in the past only a handful of ABC's have presented. Commissioner Yuhasz said that, based on the work plan, that some ABC's could be invited. Commissioner Pelissier said that she would like to get a brief report summarizing what the ABC's have done for the year so that the accomplishments could be recognized. Donna Baker said that this could be part of the work plan, to plan for the future and to summarize what has been done. 7. Appointment Process: It was decided at the March 4th work session that only statutory board appointments would be filled. Decision Point: • Does the Board want other non-statutory board positions to be filled if ABCs are not achieving a quorum? And if so, what criteria are to be met? The Board decided not to proceed now with non-statutory board appointments • Implementation Date: Continue current policy. Commissioner Hemminger suggested waiting until September 1st and see what is left. Donna Baker said that she is sending out letters to applicants letting them know that the Board of County Commissioners is only making appointments to statutory boards at this time. This item of the ABC's is the only item on the June 10th work session. Commissioner Gordon asked that the County Commissioners get a list of the statutory boards. 8. Establish criteria for ABC policy using model policy: Attachment 5 - At the February 19th retreat, SOG consultant distributed a draft copy of a model ABC policy that could be implemented for a boards/commissions process. Decision Point: • Does the BOCC want staff to proceed to develop a similar policy process (using the attachment as a template) for Orange County ABCs? • If so, would the implementation be after the reorganization of the ABC process is completed? The Board asked that this model policy be condensed and discussed later. This item was deferred. Commissioner Hemminger asked if there were boards that pay their members and it was answered ABC Board (Alcohol Beverage Control Board), Board of Adjustment, and Equalization and Review. Frank Clifton said that there should be a consistent policy regarding reimbursement for travel and a stipend. Commissioner Pelissier asked Donna Baker to put the normal procedures in the blank spots and highlight the areas that would be different, such as orientation and training for boards. For example, there was discussion about whether or not an employee of Orange County should be appointed to a board, and that's a decision point. She suggested highlighting decision points. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the Board of Equalization and Review and said that when the Board of County Commissioners went through the assignments, he volunteered for this board, and shortly after that he was informed that it was not appropriate for him to sit on that board. He said that he noticed that rather than the recommended three members, sometimes there were only two members sitting on this board. When he asked about it he was told that the scheduled member could not attend and that the timeline was so short that the alternate could not attend. He said that he would be willing to serve as an alternate on short notice. He asked John Roberts about this. John Roberts said that he would want to talk to Geof Gledhill about this before making a decision. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would like to see the list of ABC's organized in statutory, internal, external, etc. before June 101h Commissioner Yuhasz asked to include the Manager's comments on each of these boards for June 101h A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 9:36 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board