Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-18-2010 APPROVED 1/20/2011 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION November 18, 2010 7:00pm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 7:00pm 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, Mike Nelson, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts and Annette Moore COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below). Chair Foushee called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. Chair Foushee asked for a motion to go into closed session at the end of the meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to go into closed session at the end of the meeting for the purposes of: "To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee;" NCGS § 143-813.11(a)(6); and "To discuss matters related to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(4). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon arrived at 7:04 PM. 1. Solid Waste Management Issues/Convenience Centers Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson introduced this item. This item includes two issues. The first issue is an update to the December 2009 Transfer Station Motion. The background is stated below: The Board of Commissioners (BOCC) adopted a motion (attachment 1) in December 2009 that concluded the site search process for a waste transfer station that was to manage County solid waste once the current municipal waste landfill reaches capacity. This motion included provisions that: • Authorized the manager to formalize an agreement with the City of Durham for utilization of the Durham Transfer Station for a period of 3-5 years, • That such an agreement would extend priority to Orange County's leadership in waste reduction and recycling, • Directed the Manager to work with the towns on amending the 1999 Interlocal Agreement in preparation for the shift in hauling waste to the City of Durham, • Work with the towns in examining and reconsidering participation in the current Interlocal Agreement's other provisions including solid waste planning, • Directed County staff and the SWAB to develop a timeline and framework for a public process to evaluate alternative methods of solid waste disposal, including multi-jurisdictional options, and to return with a proposed framework no sooner than September 2010, • Authorizes no funding for consultants to pursue these matters without specific approval of the BOCC, and • Excludes the Millhouse Road-Rogers Road-Eubanks road communities from future waste facilities. The most practical consequence of the motion was that there was no transfer station site selected. A report is provided (attachment 2) that discusses the status of the various topics and issues included in the adopted motion. The Solid Waste Advisory Board is currently discussing a recommendation with regard to the framework and timeline for evaluation of technological alternatives to landfilling. At its October 13 meeting the SWAB endorsed a preliminary set of recommendations to the BOCC with regard to a new Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management that will be further refined and finalized as soon as possible. 1) The Manager and staff have had discussions with the City of Durham counterparts over the period following the Board's in-county transfer station decision. The City of Durham agreed and acknowledged that they will welcome Orange County's waste either on an interim basis or more permanently. Nothing in writing has been prepared or executed pending decisions by the Towns. 2) The Towns' and County staffs have conducted two formal meetings and have had various informal conversations with regard to the Town's intentions in joining the County in an interim delivery of waste to the City of Durham Transfer Station. The towns have apparently been exploring various alternative options in order to identify the most agreeable solution for their needs and especially to reduce their expected increase in transportation costs they would incur in hauling to the City of Durham. 3) The SWAB is preparing to recommend an outline/framework for a comprehensive new Interlocal Agreement (IA) that acknowledges the County's decision to deliver its waste to the City of Durham on an interim basis. The proposed revised IA would recommend eliminating many of the current (IA) provisions that deal with the Greene Tract and the transfer of employees and property from Chapel Hill to the County, propose a new solid waste advisory board, and a host of other elements that are further presented in an upcoming report. 4) Over the past several months various interested residents, SWAB members, the Manager's office, technology vendors, entrepreneurs and speculators have made suggestions toward, urged investigation of, forwarded information on or raised issues with regard to a number of disparate and derivative technologies, including mostly what are considered in the industry as "emerging technologies." The SWAB has previously sponsored speakers on topics such as waste-to-energy and plasma arc waste management processes. Staff has observed technology demonstrations and attended conferences and workshops where various technologies have been discussed. 5) The array of proven and unproven technologies is considerable and growing. Research and development of technological waste management methodologies and processes continues across the world. While the SWAB, staff, various interested citizens and elected officials can and do receive information with regard to various technologies, the ability to conduct meaningful and reliable evaluation of the dozens of technologies in various states of operation, research or development, including associated issues of economic, applicability, permitability, markets for by- products, and specific local adaptability/suitability, etc., require a level of technical knowledge and experience that the SWAB and staff do not have. The recommendation is to have some type of technical assistance. 6) It has been generally accepted by staff, particularly following the decision by the BOCC that a transfer station would not be considered for existing Eubanks Road landfill property and adjacent properties, that it would not be politically acceptable for consideration of future new solid waste facilities. This has been understood to include lateral landfill expansions, transfer stations, and other waste disposal related facilities. In order to clarify the BOCC intentions on Enterprise Fund property, we suggest, sometime in 2011, that staff update the BOCC adopted 2011 Eubanks Road property master plan and clarify county intentions, acknowledging that future Boards may pursue other decisions. Commissioner Jacobs arrived at 7:07 PM. Commissioner Yuhasz said that in going through this with the SWAB, they kept trying to figure out a way to address some of the items in the Board's motion and they kept coming up against the reality that any solution will require cooperation among all of the jurisdictions that are involved. The fact is that the current interlocal agreement does not provide a method to address solid waste issues that do not involve collection of the solid waste in Orange County before transferring to some other location. This is why the SWAB felt very strongly that a new interlocal agreement is the foundation for investigating any other options with regard to solid waste. Commissioner Pelissier said that she sees this as critically important because there are only two years before the landfill closes. She thinks that the elected officials need to get together and make decisions. She suggested sending a letter to the towns, formally initiating the process to come up with this new interlocal agreement. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 7:16 PM. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Hillsborough's proposed Waste to Energy facility at the intersection of Old NC 86 and 1-40. He said that, considering that the County is the lead entity in solid waste, it is amazing how little the County has been consulted in this. He is not sure if the first step is to redo the interlocal agreement. He thinks that the first step is to ask the jurisdictions if they want to participate in having an interlocal agreement, if they think that the County should take a lead role in managing solid waste, and if they are interested in an open and collaborative process. Commissioner Gordon said that since it looks like the towns are looking at alternative options, she thinks that the first thing is to ask the towns where they stand. She asked if everything was on the table. The first step is to find out where everyone stands on this issue. Commissioner Hemminger said that she thinks that there has to be a new interlocal agreement because there are so many issues with solid waste disposal when the landfill closes. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the thinking was that if the discussion about the interlocal agreement was initiated, that would indicate whether the municipalities were interested in continuing in a cooperative agreement. Commissioner Jacobs said that he does not see a point in spending time negotiating if it is not in good faith and it is not a partnership. Chair Foushee said that she would agree. She thinks that what the SWAB is saying is that those things over which the County has control and takes the lead on, then it should be done expeditiously. Willie Best said that there have been a couple of meetings with the senior staff and the Town Managers trying to get them to expedite their decision about going in with the County, but there has been no movement. Commissioner Yuhasz said that Jim Ward, who served on the SWAB, has indicated that Chapel Hill is interested in pursuing a new interlocal agreement and continuing cooperation on solid waste. Commissioner Pelissier asked at what point they would need to know if all the Towns are in to negotiate with Durham. Frank Clifton said that Orange County could enter into an agreement at any time with Durham for Orange County's waste stream because there is excess capacity. He said that whatever is done and how it is done is going to be dictated by the waste stream. The only issue now is there is no commitment from the Towns as to their waste streams to make a long-term commitment. It is not a limiting factor to get input from the Towns. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be important to figure out the negotiating points with the Towns before working out the interlocal agreement. It can be a long process. Gayle Wilson said that the immediate concern is what will happen after the landfill closes. There must be a long-term solution too, but there must be a plan ready for when the landfill closes. Hauling to Durham may not be the best long-term solution. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners passed a resolution almost a year ago about solid waste and a transfer station, and item #4 on page 7 is "evaluating alternative methods for solid waste disposal, looking for partners," and he thinks it is key to the discussion of an interlocal agreement about whether Orange County would be Durham's partner or customer. There is a huge difference. He thinks that the County would like to be a partner and has acted in good faith and should be a partner. Frank Clifton said that he does not think that Orange County is a big enough entity to be a partner with Durham because the waste stream is so small. To make it financially feasible, Orange County would have to have a waste stream twice the amount that it has now. Gayle Wilson said that there is a lot of misinformation out there about these issues. He said that he talked with Raymond Bose, the Director of Energy Services for UNC, about the rumors about the so-called waste energy fuel facility that is being considered as part of a development, and he said that no one has talked to him to evaluate any technology about anything. He has heard of it, but has not been involved in any discussions. He thinks that this is a preliminary concept at best. Frank Clifton said that, as far as he knows, no such facility exists in the United States. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed that the County Commissioners need to know whether the County is going to be a partner or a customer. Commissioner Hemminger suggested starting with a new interlocal agreement. Frank Clifton said that in the existing agreement in 1999, the County agreed to assume all liability of closing costs. Commissioner Gordon said to look at that agreement to see what it says because there are some statements that might survive that agreement. She wants to know the exit strategy before doing away with that agreement. Chair Foushee said that it seems like the consensus is to work on the interlocal agreement and to have staff move forward with engaging with the municipalities to ensure that there is information about what is going forward and how they might become partners. Commissioner Jacobs requested that staff come back to the Board first with the list of things that will have to be dealt with and the other questions that need to be addressed. Frank Clifton suggested drafting a letter that the Board Chair can send to the Mayors. The Board agreed. Gayle Wilson then presented the PowerPoint of Orange County Solid Waste Convenience Center Recommendations from Solid Waste Plan Work Group. Orange County SWCC Recommendations From Solid Waste Plan Work Group Presentation to County Commissioners Nov. 18, 2010 Background • 21,260 households in unincorporated areas • Five convenience centers in county • 428,361 total visits in 2009/10 (434,272 in 08/09) • No fees charged currently • Accept MSW, C&D, wood, brush, recyclables, batteries, scrap metal, tires, electronics, oil, antifreeze and many other materials • Average convenience center user travels 501 mi/yr to drop off waste Solid Waste Convenience Centers Key Issues/Opportunities Identified • Continue to Increase Efficiencies — Reduce double/triple handling — Increase densities at SWCCs to lower hauling costs • Continue to Enhance Services — Citizens like the SWCC program for many reasons — Interest and potential for adding new recyclable materials — Continued commercial recycling interest in SWCCs • Presents Opportunity to Proactively Prepare for Hauling to Durham — After landfill closure, SWCCs will be primary solid waste infrastructure in the county Existing Site Issues • Container loading height • Lack of paving/dust • Traffic flow issues • Odor, vermin, spill control The Process – 2007 to Now • Examined Range of Options — Different levels of site improvements • Modernizing all five sites equally • Low cost option – installing compactors only • Neighborhood/district approach — Various fee structures (annual, gate, per-bag) • Evaluated Financial Performance and Public Preferences • Rated Against Weighted Decision Criteria • Final Ranking and Recommendation Summary of Recommendations • Location —Larger District centers –two locations —Smaller Neighborhood centers –three locations • Design —Add compactors for efficiency —Increase recycling opportunities —Improve safety/ADA access —Reduces environmental impact Summary of Recommendations • Operation —Expand days and hours of operation —Provide 6-7 day access for both proposed districts —Potentially include evening hours • Funding —Sustainable, equitable and predictable funding via annual household fee —Reduce/eliminate use of General Fund —Charges for some items/customer types Convenience Center Locations District Centers • Eubanks Road • Walnut Grove Church Road Neighborhood Centers • Ferguson Road • Bradshaw Quarry Road • High Rock Road Future Neighborhood Center • Mincey Road? Neighborhood Site Concept • Open 3-4 days per week • Limited materials accepted: -MSW —Single stream recyclables —TRIP materials (motor oil, filters, electronics, antifreeze, batteries) • All MSW compacted – no capacity for larger bulky waste, C&D, or yard waste District Site Concept • Open 6 days per week • Accepts wider range of items: — Bulky waste and C&D — Tires, clean wood, scrap metal — Yard waste • New additional items: — Styrofoam, plastic bags, textiles, expanded salvage shed, cooking oil, lights containing mercury • Two-level design with tip wall for large items Key Design Features • Stationary compactors for MSW, cardboard, single stream recyclables: —Reduce labor and collection costs —Reduce insect/rodent problems —Control odor —Save space —Prevent windblown trash Key Design Features • Paved Surfaces —Prevent containers from digging into the gravel —Prevent ponding —Eliminate blown dust —Improve safety and ease of spill clean-up Key Design Features • Two-Level Sites (District SWCCs only) —Allow bulky waste and other materials to be tipped into containers —Improve safety, ease of use, and speed for customers —Allow placement of larger roll-off containers to reduce transportation costs Capital Required • Compactors — 5 at each district site — 2 at each neighborhood site — 3 Vertipacks for Bradshaw Quarry • Signage • Balers for specialty items at district sites • Paving at all sites Capital Costs by Site Center Capital Cost Estimate (in Annual Amortization (in thousands of dollars) thousands of dollars) Eubanks (district) 1,085 79 Walnut (district) 853 63 Ferguson (neighborhood) 194 13 High Rock 216 14 Bradshaw 152 13 Total costs 2,500 182 Operational Savings from Capital Improvements • Fewer hauls — due to compacted material • Use of less expensive roll-off track • These changes are especially necessary due to lack of transfer station — creating longer haul distances • Impact of Landfill Closure • Longer hauls to out-of-county landfills • Each haul must carry more waste to make up for longer distance Operational Savings Function Annual Savings (in thousands of dollars) Direct Cost Savings • Reduced MSW and Bulky Trips 68 Labor Cost Savings • Reduced MSW/Bulky Collection 75 • Reduced OCC Collection Labor 16 Equipment Cost Savings • Eliminate 2 Front Load Trucks 92 • Add 1 Hook Lift Roll-off (28) Total Savings 221 $140,000 additional avoided hauling costs for delivery to Durham Financial Projections— No General Fund Support(Table 4)*- large table Financial Projections— General Fund Support Phased Out(Table 6)*- large table SWCC Household "4-R" Fee Options • Flat or Tiered • Immediate Implementation or Phase Out of GF Support Conclusions • SWCCs are a core county service worth supporting as publicly owned and operated centers • Implementation of capital improvements will result in operational savings and service improvements • Sustainable, equitable, predictable fee based system will allow for SWCCs to operate independently of General Fund support, as an integral component of the enterprise fund Gayle Wilson answered several clarifying questions of the County Commissioners about the 4-R fee. Frank Clifton said that there may be an issue to look at with rural residents who use a collection service. There could be a credit for those residents since they would not use the convenience centers as much. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that property taxes are tax deductible and fees are not. He said that he hates these fees because it is not really fair to people. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is a disproportionate percentage of residents' income because a person in a $100,000 house is paying the same as a person in a $1 million house. He said that, as he looks at these numbers, it complicates things and the County Commissioners will have to make some value judgments about the ultimate purpose in the County having its own solid waste system. If part of it is to make it more cost-effective for citizens, the general fund part might be the way to keep it from getting too expensive. Frank Clifton said that there is some discussion about whether personal property taxes will be deductible this year. There is a balance somewhere. Commissioner Jacobs said that he got an estimate from a private hauler, and it was about $250 a year. He said that the County is getting close when it is charging the $91 plus the $75 rural curbside. He said that either the County provides this service or it is a private vendor. Using a private hauling system would make it more difficult to achieve the 61% waste reduction goal. Frank Clifton said that he uses a private hauler and it is $23 a month for them to pick up his trash, but that does not include recycling. He has to take everything else to the convenience center. Commissioner Nelson said that if the real concern is the burden on families, then it needs to be fixed and not shifted. Commissioner Yuhasz said that one of the things that was discussed was that the urban residents were paying the same for the convenience centers and they do not use them nearly as much, and this is not fair. To the extent that the convenience centers are funded out of the general fund, there is pressure to reduce funding for convenience centers from the urban residents who do not use them as much. There needs to be a secure funding mechanism. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks it should be a fee and some general fund, and it should be tiered and phased. Also, the 3-R fee should be explained completely to the citizens. Commissioner Pelissier said that she liked the approach of the tiered system. It will be a cost to the citizens either way you look at it. She thinks that a tiered system would be equitable. She would like to know how this will get the County to the 61% reduction. Gayle Wilson said that the residential sector already does a great job recycling and participation is high. Adding materials is the best way to move forward. There is some additional commercial potential in recycling. The current recommendation is for the High Rock and Walnut Grove sites to be in the first phase of the improvements. Commissioner Gordon asked about the cost of the compactors. Gayle Wilson said that the unit is between $20-25,000. There is also a concrete pad needed. The power is also a cost. Gayle Wilson answered clarifying questions about compactors. Commissioner Gordon asked about the cost of the landfill closure and Gayle Wilson said that the preliminary estimates are that it will cost between $1.9-2.3 million. He is working with the engineer to minimize that cost. There is money in reserves and there is cash on hand to pay for closure. He thinks that the concern is 20 years down the road and doing the annual groundwater monitoring. He said that he has talked with the Financial Services Director about coming up with an Enterprise Fund model. Commissioner Gordon said that this would be a good idea. Commissioner Yuhasz said that the users of the convenience centers have said over and over again that they want the centers open more hours. Also, regarding the tiered fee, he said that it would not just be urban users that have a lower fee, but also rural users that have private haulers. Commissioner Hemminger is concerned about the citizens understanding all of these fees. She is also concerned about the convenience centers being used more when the landfill closes. Solid Waste Director Blair Pollock said that when the 3-R fee was enacted, there was a huge public education campaign. He said that this could be made really clear. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to staff getting hurt helping people and said that he would like to see the written guidelines for staff helping people. Also, he does not want to abandon the idea of having a tag for citizens if they have paid the fee to use the convenience center. Chair Foushee said that there is general support for a phased and tiered system of fees. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to see all of the numbers worked out. Chair Foushee said that the County Commissioners also want more information on the scheduling and the costs associated with flexible scheduling. Commissioner Jacobs complimented the Solid Waste staff. 2. Facilities Use Policy Revisions Commissioner Nelson left at 8:56 PM. Frank Clifton said that the Board asked for a Facility Use Policy. Annette Moore said that this policy has not been updated since 1993. The overall goal was to bring together all of the pieces from the different facilities to have a consistent policy throughout the County and would also be seamless for residents. The goal is to make it a policy instead of an ordinance. Asset Management Director Pam Jones went through the draft policy and the PowerPoint presentation. Facilities Use Policy November 18, 2010 Background • Revises 1993 policy • Covers all facilities, including parks - Supersedes all existing policies/ordinances • Structure of policy - Policy vs. Procedures Key Definitions • Public Purpose: any activity in which the action or direction concerns, affects or is of benefit to Orange County or the Orange County community. • County Department - Includes groups recognized by the County whose sole purpose is to provide support/resources to County Department • Affiliated group - 50% operating funds from County - 50% governing board appointed by County - 50% of group's membership appointed by County • Non-affiliated group - Any public purpose group not meeting the definition of affiliate • Building - Enclosed climate controlled structure that may be divided into areas for various uses • Grounds - Areas outside County buildings, including lawns • Parks - Picnic shelters, playing fields, basketball courts, tennis courts and other amenities Use Codes • Use Code 1 — County Departments, Affiliates and Non-affiliates for public purposes • Use Code 2 — By permission of the County Manager • Use Code 3 — County Departments only; or with written permission of Department Head • Use Code 4 — Political events as defined by Policy • Use Code 5 — Departments, Affiliates, Non-Affiliates for social/recreational purposes for public purpose events • Use Code 6 — Social/recreational purposes for non-public purpose events Use Code 1 • West Campus Office Building conference rooms 004, 009 and 0011 • Central Orange Senior Center — Ballroom, Common/Drop in Area, Aerobics Room • Southern Human Services meeting rooms — Board Room, Room C and Room D • Library meeting room • Seymour Center — Great Hall, Ash Room, Birch Room, Dogwood Room, Gathering area and Theater • Solid Waste training room • Animal Services Multi-Purpose Room • Efland Cheeks Community Center Use Code 2 • Justice Facility — Mural Courtroom — Courtrooms 3 and 4 — Hearing Room — Battle Courtroom • Historic Courthouse — Courtroom — Grand Jury Room • Skills Development Center — All classrooms — Front Steps and lawns around both Courthouses Use Code 3 • West Campus Office Building — Conference rooms within departmental space • Environment and Agriculture Center — Conference room, food lab • Elections — Conference room • Link Center — All conference rooms • Emergency Services — EOC and Tactical Center • Central Orange Senior Center — Conference room • Seymour Center — Conference room • Hillsborough Commons — Board room • Gateway Center — All conference rooms Use Code 4 • Justice Facility — Mural Courtroom — Battle Courtroom — Front Area • Historic Courthouse — Courtroom — Front Area — Lawn Use Code 5 • Library conference room • Central Recreation at Whitted — Activity Rooms) • Animal Services — Multi-Purpose Room • Central Orange Senior Center — Ballroom, Common/Drop In Area, Aerobics Room • Seymour Center — Great Hall, Ash, Burch and Dogwood Rooms, Gathering Area and Theater • Efland Cheeks Community Center • All parks facilities, except for Eurosport Soccer Center Use Code 6 • Central Recreation at Whitted — Activity Rooms • Animal Services — Multi-Purpose Room • Central Orange Senior Center — Ballroom, Common/Drop In Area, Aerobics Room • Seymour Center — Great Hall, Ash, Burch and Dogwood Rooms, Gathering Area and Theater • Efland Cheeks Community Center • All parks facilities, including Eurosport Soccer Center Rules of Use Highlights • Not for-profit sales events in County facilities • Sale of food only at recreational facilities and only with appropriate vending permit • Manager may authorize serving wine/beer at special events — Host liability insurance will be required • Large events subject to additional requirements — On-site law enforcement/EMS personnel — Off site parking may be required — Appropriate permits from other jurisdictions • Use of Courthouse may require deputy to conduct screening (user pays personnel costs) • Kitchen use allowed, but fee may apply • Recycling required • A/V, public address systems, technology not provided by County. — Seymour Center Theater exception; fee required for staff • Political Parties • Use designated facilities in accordance with G.S. 163-99 for annual or biennial precinct meetings and county and district conventions • Cannot use facilities for individual candidates events • Can use for forums including a full slate of candidates • No use fee for statutorily required use, but may be assessed utility/cleaning charges. Making a Reservation • On line preferred — Technology approach under discussion • Single portal • Route to responsible departments • Assessed against Policy and procedures, including fee schedule • Notice of Approval issued Notable Reservation Parameters • Reservations accepted up to 90 days prior — Manager may approve exceptions • 18 or older to reserve • May not reserve continuously • Parks: — May not reserve park for more than three consecutive days — May not reserve entire park Cancellations • Avoid if possible • At least 48 hours notice if County has to cancel reservation, when possible • Reservations cancelled automatically if County closes for inclement weather — Reschedule or refund available • If user cancels — 2 weeks before event—refund except for admin fee — Less than 2 weeks-50% of fees refunded • Current Fees • Currently: — Recreation fees are charged and approved as part of budget process; — No charges for County meeting rooms and/or Senior Center facilities are assessed Proposed Fees • Recreation fees remain intact • Administrative fee for processing all reservations • Hourly fees for use of rooms • Kitchen Use • Technology (available only at Seymour Center Theater) • Extraordinary Cleaning fees • Damage Deposit Exceptions to Fees • Schools, other Municipalities, Federal and State Agencies charged only administrative fee and utility charge for after-hours use — Full fee schedule proposed if entity charges Orange County for reciprocal use of meeting space Timeline • November 18, 2010—Plan presented • By February 2011—Target approval date and resolution of technology issues • By June 2011—Fees approved as part of budget process • July 1, 2011—Effective date of Policy Special Thanks ... • Donna Baker • Pam Jones • Todd Jones • Annette Moore • Bob Marotto • Lucinda Munger • David Stancil • Gayle Wilson • Lori Taft • Andrea Tullos • Janice Tyler • Kathy Zophi Commissioner Hemminger made reference to where it says, "Manager approval," and said that it should say "Manager or designee." She is also concerned about reserving priority space for citizens of Orange County. She would like for the majority of a group that is using a facility be Orange County citizens. Commissioner Hemminger made reference to the fees and said that being charged an administrative fee is sometimes too much for a group to pay. She said that the citizens have already paid for these buildings with tax dollars. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Policy Statement and said that he would like to suggest two more. The first one is as follows: "No Orange County public facility, regardless of its primary purpose, is exclusively reserved for use by a single interest group, organization, or population goup." He said that some people think that the Senior Center only belongs to senior citizens and that ball fields only belong to young people. He wants to make an affirmative statement. The second statement is as follows: "The Board of County Commissioners reserves the right, under extraordinary circumstances, to preempt meetings by County departments and groups. The Board of County Commissioners will give as much notice as possible, and the Clerk to the Board will assist the affected group in finding another meeting site." He said that the Board has been told that it could not have a room because it had already been reserved. He wants to state up front that there are some times when the Board of County Commissioners can use a room. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a two-week lead for reservations for out of county entities and a four-week lead for in-county entities. Commissioner Jacobs said that he was curious about why the Social Services Board meeting room was not listed. He thought that it was purposely designed so that it could be used. Pam Jones said that this is for the evening time only. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the mention of schools and he wants to be explicit that this includes Durham Tech and UNC. Also, he said that religious group should be addressed, because it does come up. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 6, Section 5.1.4, and asked about "illegal drugs and other substances." It was answered that this includes anything illegal. On Section 5.1.6, he said that sometimes military personnel are at a facility and they bring weapons. He said that these should be allowed (military color guard weapons). On page 8, Section 6.3.1 and banners, he asked about the policy on putting political signs on the lawns of the buildings. He has seen this done. Pam Jones said that it would have to be on the right-of-way and not on the lawn. On page 9, Section 8.1.4, this is about Hog Day, but in reading it, it does not qualify if it charges an entry fee. Frank Clifton said that this would be the intent, to not allow an entity to charge an entry fee. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to liability issues and said that people have considered Orange County arbitrary when they are banned from using inflatable playgrounds or landing a helicopter on a County facility. He would like to have some process for people to know who to talk to. Annette Moore said that there will be a process and there has been discussion about this. There will be more discussion about fees and more specific numbers will be brought back at a later time. Commissioner Pelissier concurred with the comments about the small groups because they cannot afford the fees most of the time. Regarding the reservation/cancellation procedures on page 16, A-2, where it says, "Notice of Reservation Approval will be provided to the requestor prior to the event," Commissioner Pelissier said that if people want to reserve a room, she would like to see a general timeframe for when the response might be received from the County. On A-6, regarding refunds due to inclement weather, she said that if the County closes, then the group definitely should get a refund. Pam Jones agreed. On page 17, number 3, Commissioner Pelissier said that she found this confusing as it is worded. Commissioner Gordon flagged Section 5.1.3, Alcoholic Beverages. She does not think that they should be allowed in general. She suggested allowing them only in Class 6, if at all. Commissioner Gordon made reference to Section 9.7 and asked if County departments could schedule for a whole year and it was answered yes. Commissioner Gordon also asked if UNC and Durham Tech charged the County for use of their facilities and it was answered yes, they do. Regarding the user fees, Commissioner Gordon said that the County should do something to at least cover wear and tear. She said that the County cannot afford to subsidize private groups that cannot pay to use facilities. She said that this needs to be thought through. Pam Jones said that one suggestion would be to allow the small groups to use the buildings only at the times that they are already open. Chair Foushee said that if the County is paying to use UNC's and Durham Tech's facilities, then they should pay to use the County's facilities. She also wants to rethink whether to allow sales on County property. She does not want to move forward with this. Commissioner Hemminger said that she would also like to see a policy for the soccer complex because it is a new entity. Dave Stancil said that there is some information that staff is getting ready to send regarding the soccer complex. Commissioner Yuhasz suggested having a priority list so that people can see which rooms are easiest to use and least expensive. Pam Jones said that when this is finished, there will be a paper copy and it will also be on the website and it will have a layout of each room. 3. Future Space Allocations for County Departments/Operations and Plans for Available Facilities Pam Jones said that the County has had a space study since 2000 and there is very little left outstanding. There are three areas — Central Orange Human Services Delivery Site, Southern Orange Human Services, and Social Services at Hillsborough Commons on a ten-year lease because it is too expensive to buy. The County gets 50% back on this lease. Future Space Allocations November 18, 2010 Background • Space study completed in 2000 with updates in 2004, 2006 and 2008 to reflect construction decisions • Most identified needs resolved with aggressive construction program over past four years Outstanding Needs • Human services delivery sites in Central Orange County • Southern Orange Human Services Campus build out plans • Court and Detention space Human Services Delivery in Central Orange County • Current service delivery locations: - Hillsborough Commons • DSS - Whitted Building • Health Department Administration, Health Clinic, Dental Clinic • Housing and Community Development/Human Rights and Relations Dept. - Sawyer Building (leased space for Child Support Enforcement) Hillsborough Commons • DSS needs addressed via long-term lease at Hillsborough Commons • Lease term expires 2018 with two 10-year renewals available thereafter • Lease beneficial with current level of Federal reimbursement • Option to purchase by February 2012 included in lease • 10 acres • 108,000 square feet • Purchase price—$15,489,000 with off-set = $15,000 per month of rent paid • Board stated desire to not exercise the option Whitted Building • Occupants: — Health Clinics, Dental Clinics, Health Administration — Housing/Community Development and Human Rights and Relations Dept. • Renovation design underway to create additional health and dental clinic space — Estimated 7-10 year space sufficiency — Allows the Carr Mill lease to expire at an annual savings of around $113,000 • Long term replacement for this building to be identified • Arts community interested in old Library space for performing arts auditorium • Potential partnerships may exist if the Board is interested Recommendations Central Orange Human Services • Retain professional services to: - Determine/confirm departmental long-term needs - Explore potential locations and potential partnerships for facility location - Provide construction and operations cost analysis to support recommendations Southern Orange Human Services Campus • Currently two buildings on campus - Human Services Center - Seymour Center • Expansion requests on record for both - Board approved a 15,000 square foot addition to the Human Services building in 2008, to be funded in 2011-2012, if possible • Long-term court facility may be needed at this site Recommendations • Seek professional services to: — Produce master plan of campus — Update of needs analysis that matches needs to the available capacity of site — Explore merits of early preparation of identified building sites — Provide cost analysis for recommendations Court Support Offices • Immediate need for space in Hillsborough — Probation/Parole — Juvenile Services • prompted by the consolidation of operations to Hillsborough as requested by the County • Allows existing lease to expire in June 30, 2011 • Annual savings around $65,000 — Public Defender • Annual savings for Carr Mill lease $113,000 ( $65,000 for this and $65, 000/dental) Court Support Office Recommendations • Authorize use of either 129 E. King Street or 112 N. Churton Street for court offices • Leave final office location of the three functions to Manager's discretion • Authorize the use of the office suite vacated by Human Rights and Relations at 501 West Franklin Street as visiting offices for Probation/Parole and Juvenile Services; and primary offices for the Guardian Ad Litem staff Detention Space Recommendations Contract with jail planning specialist to: • Analyze and recommend efficiencies in the use of existing space and proposed cell expansion • Analyze future detention needs • Recommend alternatives, complete with feasibility of development in Orange County • Provide operational and construction cost estimates • Provide critical analysis of sites that may be considered Update on Other Properties • 112 N. Churton Street and 129 East King Street remain for sale — Interest expressed for incubator business at either building, but 129 is preferred • 1914 New Hope Church Road — Orange County Board of Education has offered to purchase for$100,000, funded from their pay as you go allocation over four years Pam Jones said that the owner of Hillsborough Commons did not want to extend an option without significant money from the County. It is 10 acres and 108,000 square feet, so there is some value, just not as much as he thinks. She asked the owner to come back with some proposals that might work for both parties. Most of the shops there are closed. The only thing left is the optometrist and the Dollar Tree. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is not ready to have a consultant contract come back until he knows what is going on with the budget. On the scale of priorities, this is not high to him. Chair Foushee echoed Commissioner Jacobs' comments. The Commissioners agreed that they did not wish to retain the professional services for Central Orange Human Services described in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Gordon said that for the foreseeable future, the County is consolidating services in Hillsborough. She thinks that they should start thinking about consolidating services in the population centroid, which is the northern part of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. She said that the County says it has a dual-service model, but it does not. She thinks that the County Commissioners have to seriously grapple with this political question before getting into the details. This is a serious issue. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is also important to look at the center of population that is being served and not necessarily the overall population. Pam Jones continued with the PowerPoint presentation The Commissioners discussed the Southern Human Services Center campus. Commissioner Jacobs said that the color map for the campus was confusing at this point. Also, building area 7 has the most mature hardwoods. He would not want to lose what was done when the staff walked the tract before. The Commissioners agreed that they wanted to seek professional services to produce a master plan of the campus and to do the other three tasks described in the staff recommendation, as shown in the PowerPoint Presentation. Commissioner Jacobs said that for a future meeting, he would like to know what the County was asking for the New Hope Church Road building and the process. Also, he said that he is inclined to allow the type of use at the Whitted Building that would allow the Hillsborough Arts Council to use the performance space. He talked to Carlo Robustelli at Durham Tech, and they would like to partner with the Hillsborough Arts Council possibly, because he is interested in starting a Creative Arts program. There may be multiple partners in this. He said that some people forget that the arts are economic development and he wants to encourage this. Commissioner Gordon made reference to 1914 New Hope Church Road and said that she is puzzled because it would divert the pay-as-you-go resources for the Orange County schools. She does not know why they want to buy this property. Frank Clifton said that this will be turned into operating offices and used on a much smaller scale. Commissioner Gordon said that this has to be considered in the context of the entire funding of the two school systems. Both systems have come to the County before with requests for administrative offices, and the County said that it wanted to emphasize classroom space, children, and teachers. The administrative offices are not a high priority. Pam Jones said that there is now an offer on this building and the standard procedure is to bring it back to the Board to consider. The school representatives will be present and can answer questions. She thinks that the school system was going to free up classroom space by having this building. Commissioner Gordon said that the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance dictates when the schools need more classroom space, and this system is not in need of any more space at this time. Regarding the Whitted Building, Commissioner Gordon said that this is an old building and there may be some structural issues. She thought there were limitations on how many people can be in this building. There are also parking issues. Commissioner Pelissier said that the first priority for the Whitted Building would be the schools because it is a public entity. She would like to have a conversation, because it would be great for the Hillsborough Arts Council to have an opportunity. Commissioner Jacobs said that Commissioner Pelissier made a good point about process, but staff was asking for authorization to continue the dialogue with the Town and formulating mutually acceptable terms of use for the Board's consideration. If there is a question of process, then it should be scheduled and the Board should decide if it is authorizing staff to continue conversations. He thinks that the Whitted Building is a unique space and should not be used for offices. It was built as a performance space and it had thousands of books in it, so it can hold some weight. Hillsborough is the entity that the County is dealing with, so it is the Town's parking problem and not the County's. He agrees that there should be a process. Frank Clifton said that he does not think that the business of the County should be to lease office space for non-profit groups. He hopes that the County can reach terms with the Town on the use of the facility and then allow the Town to have responsibility for how the facility is used. Commissioner Gordon said that she is concerned because two nights ago the Town of Hillsborough told the County that it did not have $30,000 a year for a park for Fairview. She does not understand how the Town would get the money for this if it does not have the money for Fairview Park. The Board agreed to discuss this at a future meeting. The Board did not make any decisions on the other staff recommendations given in the PowerPoint presentation. Frank Clifton said if the Board approved he would like to invite Commissioner-Elect McKee into closed session and John Roberts said that is fine. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to approve inviting Commissioner- Elect Earl McKee into the closed session meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to go into closed session at 10:52 p.m.: To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(6); AND To discuss matters related to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations, NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(4). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to reconvene into regular session at 11:39pm VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to adjourn the meeting at 11:39pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board