HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-22-2011 APPROVED 4/5/2011
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUDGET WORK SESSION
February 22, 2011
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Budget Work Session on
Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel
Hill. N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier, and
Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl
McKee and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board
Donna S. Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below)
1. FY 2011-12 Budqet Work Session
Financial Services Director Clarence Grier presented this item. He made a PowerPoint
presentation. He said that the purpose of this is to have preliminary budget discussions for
2011-12. He said that his budget does not include what the Governor is trying to pass off to
the counties.
Budget Work Session
February 22, 2011
Current Economic and Budgetary Information from Across the State
Summary of Responses to Budget Issues and Recession across the State
- 16 counties increase tax rate — avg. of 3.3 cents
- 49 counties cut budgets (again)
- 44 counties report hiring freeze
- 43 counties cut positions
- 1,000+ fewer positions, on top of 2009-10 cuts of 1,000
- 14 counties laid off existing employees
- 595 county workers lost jobs
- 7 counties implement mandatory furloughs
- 31 of 100 counties see assessed value above market value (unprecedented in 20+
years of calculating market to assessed value ratio)
- 2009-10 sales taxes nearly 5% below 2008-09
- 20 counties use fund balance to replace lottery funds
What Does Our State Legislature Face?
The 2009-10 budget included:
- Loss of $1.3 billion in temporary taxes
- Loss of $1.6 billion in federal stimulus dollars
- Loss of $0.3 billion in non-recurring budget reductions
The projected 2011-12 issues:
- Summary: static budget gap going into 2011-2012 of $2.7 recently to $4.3 billion.
- Governor Perdue's budget passes $93.3 million of costs for education related
expenses to the counties.
What Do the State Problems Mean to Local Government?
- Expect "transformational" government at the State level
- Everything will be on the table
- Local Revenue Options — Sales tax, Hold Harmless
- Cuts (15%)/New Taxes/Tax Reform
- Potential loss of 10,000+ state jobs
- Retirement System
General Fund and Financial Overview
Top 3 Revenues — General Fund
Ad Valorem Taxes — 76%
Local Option Sales Tax— 8%
Intergovernmental Revenues — 10%
Other—6% (Charges for services, investment earnings, licenses and permits, miscellaneous)
Revenues
- Property taxes — Little growth in Tax Base. Only 1 percent in real property estimated
for FY 2011-2012
- Sales Taxes — a little growth expected in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 as the economy
recovers from the recession.
- State Budget and Shared Revenues — uncertain due to the fiscal issues at the Federal
and State levels. Currently too uncertain to predict the affect on the FY 2011-12
budget.
Property Tax
- 75% of the General Fund
- 99% Historical High Collection Rate
- 2010-2011 Real Property Collection = $123 million
- Vehicles ($8.2 million 2009) est. $7 million
Sales Tax
- Everything Has Changed
o Counties hold harmless for Medicaid
o Article 44 eliminated
o Distribution of Article 42 — point of delivery
- Impact
o Retail sales are starting to recover slightly
o Budgeted Revenues $1.5 million less than 2009-2010
o Hold harmless from state +$2.6 million
Top 3 Expenditures — General Fund
Education — 37%
Debt Service-Education — 11%
Debt Service-County—6%
Other—26% (governing and management, general services, community and environment,
public safety, culture and recreation)
Human Services —20%
General Fund Cash Flows for June 30, 2011 (table)
Fund Balance Percentage
Fiscal Year Amount Percentage of GF
Expenditures
2007 $21,384,544 13.48%
2008 $23,803,324 15.09%
2009 $18,977,470 11.43%
2010 $21,097,621 12.01%
2011 $23,217,772 12.88% (projected)
New Funding Issues
- Net decrease in debt service $1.4 million
- Increase in retirement rate of .53% $250,000
- Health Insurance increase $240,000
- 401 K/457 Contribution Reinstatement $615,000
- Salaries and benefits for positions
budgeted a %2 year in FY 2010-11 $430,000
- Rebuilding Fund Balance $400,000
- Inflationary costs yet to be determined, but latest CPI is estimated at 3%
Existing Funding Issues
- Capital Investment Plan
o Schools $26.5 million
o County $14.1 million
- Rebuilding Fund Balance $400,000
- Operating Budget Growth $0
Spending Strategies
- Defer CIP funding — County another year
- Eliminate vacant positions
- Reduce funding to outside agencies
Revenue Strategies
- Increase fees and charges for services
- Article 46 Sales Tax '/4 cent—voter approval $2.5 million
- Increase property tax— 1 cent = $1.5 million
Goals and Priorities
2011-12 Board of County Commissioners' Goals
Frank Clifton said that some of the things that have hit the County substantially are the
sales tax refunds that have been withheld by the State.
Clarence Grier went over Attachment 2, which is the financial dashboard for January
2011. The County is in a good cash position as of January 31, 2011.
Discussion ensued on the unfunded mandates that the State is passing along to
counties and the money that the State is sequestering.
Frank Clifton clarified that as the Board does things for economic development this
year, the debt will not impact the County this fiscal year, but it will impact next fiscal year.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the goals and priorities and asked if Clarence
Grier meant the ones that were already adopted. Clarence Grier said that he would like to get
direction from the Board on this.
Commissioner Gordon said that there are overall goals and priorities for the budget, but
then there are more specific budget goals.
Frank Clifton said that the Board of County Commissioners' goals and objectives are
what drive the budget.
Commissioner Pelissier asked how much the debt service would have to be increased
to fund the first year of the capital investment plan.
Frank Clifton said that this is not a proposed CIP, but just items that have been
requested by various departments. To fund all of those, it would be a 3-cent tax increase.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7 under sales tax and the "hold
harmless for State" and asked what this signifies. Clarence Grier said that this is the money
that is expected from the Medicaid sales tax swap. Commissioner Jacobs said that this is
another thing that the State could take from the County.
Frank Clifton said that when the Medicaid sales tax swap took place, one of the
provisions was for the County to hold the towns harmless. The $2.6 million reimbursement is
only a guesstimate.
Commissioner Foushee said that this figure is not etched in stone either and the State
can take this money as well. It is still vulnerable.
Commissioner Jacobs said that Governors and legislators will take whatever monies
they want from counties. He said that at one point, the County hired Bob Segal to do a sales
tax investigation and he found over$1 million, but he had problems getting cooperation from
both school systems.
Commissioner Jacobs said that at some point he would like to discuss the reductions
coming from the County side versus the schools. He said that the County has been taking all
of the cuts and he would like to have an honest conversation with the school boards, if
needed, about how to share the cuts.
Commissioner Jacobs said that his concern is that the Board is not being presented
with the worst case scenario. He would like to have a range of projections. He would like to
see a more realistic picture.
Clarence Grier said that this budget package went out after the Governor's proposal
and the staff can revise this to reflect her package.
Frank Clifton said that they could create different scenarios, but he would hate to put
information out to the Board and the public, when he has no idea what is going to happen and
the County has no control over it. He would rather present on things that the County has
control over. As far as that is concerned, the County is in a good position with the things that it
controls.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that as they move through this process, it would be helpful
for him to know what services might have to be cut in order to make up for lost revenues.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he appreciates all of the projections forthcoming and
starting with no property tax increase.
Commissioner McKee said that the County Commissioners may have to take a stand
and set an expectation that there will not be a property tax increase in order to make the
reductions they need to make.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed to start from the supposition of no property
tax increase, but he would also like staff to look at other projections because there is a certain
point where the County ceases to be Orange County and it becomes something less. He does
not want to get to this point.
Commissioner Foushee made reference the '/4 cents sales tax and said that this should
be flagged with the understanding that there is not much the County can do right now. Given
that this may be a revenue option, she would like to have a conversation before meeting with
the schools in April.
Frank Clifton said that the statutes provide that before the County sends the tax bills
out, there is an extended deadline to adjust the tax rate if needed. There is a window of
opportunity to do this, after June 30tn
Commissioner Yuhasz agreed that item 3-b (1/4 cents sales tax) needs to be discussed
again soon.
2. Preview of Requested Oranqe County CIP 2011-16
Deputy Financial Services Director Michael Talbert said that this is a preview of the
CIP. This was the buff-colored sheet. He said that this includes only requested items and it is
a working document. This is not the recommendation. He said that both school boards have
approved their CIPs. The three attachments were the requests by the County departments,
the CIP for CHCCS, and the CIP for OCS.
He made reference to page 1, which is a summary. The total for the five-year period is
$148,000,000. The total for the next five —year period is another$100,000,000. The
breakdown is $80,000,000 for County projects, $87,000,000 for CHCCS, and $45,000,000 for
OCS. One of the balancing factors that have been used for capital is the lottery proceeds.
This is $1.5 million for the next five years. If this goes away, then that is $7 million lost.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the debt capacity and Michael Talbert said that the
ratio at this time is 16.33% and the goal is to keep it under 15%.
Frank Clifton pointed out that the percentage of debt will go up as the County's budget
goes down, even if the debt stays level.
Michael Talbert continued covering the highlights on pages 2-3.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought the Sheriff needed more than $195,000 for
the jail and Frank Clifton said that he has had some discussions about this and what could be
done with this site. This amount would help alleviate some of the issues with housing of
female prisoners.
Commissioner Jacobs said that at some point in the recent past, the Board made a
commitment to the Sheriff to upgrade the jail. The Sheriff usually does not ask for things and
he wants to make sure that the Sheriff is comfortable with this.
Michael Talbert said that there is an existing jail project that was established several
years ago and some bond proceeds were put into it. It has about $1 million in it at this point.
This was for the 20 additional female cells. There is still discussion about where these cells
should go.
Frank Clifton said that there is some question about the things that need to be done for
the jail in relation to the historic district and the fact that it has to be State approved.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the $600,000 for Twin Creeks and asked
about the use for this money.
Michael Talbert said that this money is for an entranceway into the park.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Northern Human Services Center. If the
County stays in that building, it will need a lot of work. She asked if the plan was to stay in this
building.
Frank Clifton suggested that a lot of these projects need to be revisited to see if they
are still viable. With the Northern Human Services Center, there are some substantial issues
such as the community, an existing daycare, etc.
Commissioner Hemminger asked for staff to come back with deconstruction costs and
the costs for fixing the sewer system. She wants to look at these numbers before making a
decision.
Frank Clifton said that the main issue is what the County is going to do with the
building.
Michael Talbert gave some rough estimates:
- A new roof- $410,000
- HVAC replacement to an energy efficient geo-thermal system - $1.2 million
- Septic system repair- $800,000
- Deconstruction - $400,000-500,000 (approximately)
- Demolition — 1/4 to 1/3 of the cost of deconstruction
Chair Pelissier said that, given the budget situation, she wants to look at this facility and
other facilities that are not being used all that much.
Frank Clifton said that staff is looking at many of these facilities and the implications,
pros, and cons.
Commissioner McKee made reference to the southwest branch library and the year one
projection of $873,000. He asked if this was for land purchase and associated costs. Michael
Talbert said that this also includes the hiring of an architect firm to design the library.
Commissioner McKee said that, with respect to other pressing issues, he said that it
might not make sense to purchase land when the County cannot afford to build a facility and
staff it. Regarding the Chapel Hill Town Library, no decision has been made yet and he would
like to make a decision about that one before deciding on building another library.
Chair Pelissier said that the County could purchase land for a library and put the design
on hold. This would keep the costs down and keep a holding place.
Frank Clifton said that the thought in pursuing this site was that there are not a lot of
places to build a library in Carrboro.
Commissioner McKee said that he appreciates the thoughts behind buying the property
and keeping it as a placeholder. He sees this as one of the difficult decisions that the Board is
going to have to make. There are a lot of spending issues that will come before the Board. He
sees this as a project that takes less precedence over some other spending project. He would
prefer to make a decision earlier in the decision-making process.
Michael Talbert said that none of these projects are mandated and it is all the Board's
choice as a body.
Michael Talbert continued with page 4 — Efland Sewer.
Frank Cilifton said that the goal is to get out of the utility business, but it has to be built
and set up first.
Frank Clifton answered some clarifying questions of the County Commissioners.
Michael Talbert continued with page 5 — Solid Waste. Most of the funds are for
upgrades to plant equipment. It does not include the convenience center site upgrades.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the revenue includes the monies that will be derived
from the selling of inethane gas and Michael Talbert said that he has not programmed this in
because he does not know what it will be yet.
Michael Talbert made reference to page 6 and the Sportsplex and said that these are
requested numbers from the current Manager of the Sportsplex. It mainly revolves around
equipment and upgrades to the facility. The largest item is the mezzanine to be built over the
pool at just under$1 million.
Pages 7-16 are the schools' CIPs. The format is similar for both schools, but not
exactly the same.
Michael Talbert went over some of the highlights:
CHCCS:
- New schools and upgrades
o Elementary#11 at $20.6 million
o Middle school #5 at $30 million
o Technology at $13.5 million for CHCCS over ten years
OCS:
- Cedar Ridge High School
o Auxiliary gym for$10 million
o Field house for$2.2 million
- Technology at $8 million over ten years
Both school boards have adopted these plans and will be presenting them to the Board
at some point.
Frank Clifton made reference to the previous discussion about setting the tax rate and
said that he looked at the statute and the County has until January 1St of the next calendar
year to set the tax rate officially.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the projections for Elementary School #11 were tracking
with the SAPFO projections and Michael Talbert said yes. The estimate is that the school will
be open in the fall of 2013.
Returninq to Manaqer's Recommendation - Item 3b. One-quarter Cent Sales Tax
Commissioner Yuhasz said that one of the primary reasons he was in favor of this the
first time around was that it would provide funds for economic development projects. He thinks
that these projects will be critical to the opportunity to generate revenue in the future and also
to generate jobs. He thinks that this justification still exists and will continue to exist. He would
be in favor of re-proposing this at the earliest opportunity.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Yuhasz. He thinks that this is an
alternative to raising property taxes. He would like to divide the monies between education
and economic development. He thinks that the County should do this while it still can.
Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, particularly regarding doing
this while the County still can. She suggested rethinking how to allocate the proceeds.
Chair Pelissier agreed with what has been said and said that she does not want to
distribute the funds like the County Commissioners proposed last time. She would like to
make it known to the public that this tax is not on food. She wants to engage partners to
advocate for this.
Commissioner McKee asked if any other item would be on the ballot outside of the
cities and it was answered most likely not. His concern is that the turnout is usually low in
District 2 when there are no other items on the ballot.
Commissioner Gordon said that she is doubtful that any tax would pass this year
(2011). She would like to have a strategy in place that is different from last time if this is
placed on the ballot.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she is in support of trying this again.
Commissioner Foushee said that she would not want this item to get caught up in the
2012 national election.
Chair Pelissier spoke to Commissioner McKee and said that a strong education
component would be crucial in the rural areas to make sure people understood the importance
of this.
Commissioner McKee said that historically speaking, off-year elections are low turnout.
He said that having this in 2012 would be better because there would be a better turnout.
Chair Pelissier said that the majority of the Board is interested in pursuing this and she
referred to the Manager for direction on when the Board can have a discussion.
Frank Clifton said that the recommendation is that the Board makes a recommendation
to commit the revenues for a lengthy period of time (nothing less than ten years). He said that
the earliest time to discuss this would be the April 5th or 19th meeting.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to have this decided before the budget
public hearings.
Chair Pelissier said that she would like to be more specific about some of the economic
development issues than last time. She had a lot of questions from the public about what
exactly the money would be used for.
Commissioner Gordon said that, if this is done, then the education should be started
sooner and there should be more specificity. She needs evidence that it will be different this
time.
3. Solid Waste Convenience Center Improvements Proposal
Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that a work session in November, there was
discussion about improving Solid Waste Convenience Centers. The Board gave the staff
some guidance on further discussion. Some of the guidance was the tiered approach where
both sectors of the County that would be known to utilize convenience centers more would be
charged a higher rate and the urban area would be charged a little less. If this were to
proceed, there would need to be a public education outreach process. The Board also
expressed continued interest in hours of operation for the centers. He made a PowerPoint
presentation.
Orange County SWCC Work Group Recommendations
Solid Waste Convenience Centers —Approach
- Location
o Larger district centers —two locations
o Smaller neighborhood centers —three locations
- Design
o Add compactors for efficiency
o Increase recycling opportunities
o Improve safety/ADA access
o Reduce environmental impact
- Operation
o Expand days and hours of operation
o Provide 6 day access for both proposed districts
o Potentially include evening hours
- Funding
o Sustainable, equitable, and predictable funding via annual household fee
o Reduce reliance on General Fund
o Charge for some items/customer types
Convenience Center Locations
District Centers
1. Eubanks Road
2. Walnut Church Road
Neighborhood Centers
3. Ferguson Road
4. Bradshaw Quarry Road
5. High Rock Road
Future Neighborhood Center
6. Mincey Road?
Neighborhood Site Concept
- Open 4 days per week
- Limited materials accepted:
o MSW & small bulkies
o Single stream recyclables
o 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:
o Bulky waste and C&D
o Tires, clean wood, scrap metal
o Yard waste
- New additional items:
o Styrofoam, plastic bags, textiles, expanded salvage shed, cooking oil, lights
containing mercury, HHW
- Two-level design with tip wall for large items
Design Features
- Stationary compactors for MSW, cardboard, single stream recyclables
- Paved surfaces for greater cleanliness, efficiency
- Two-level sites (district SWCCs only)
o Easier to load, quicker to get in and out
o Multiple lanes to reduce queuing
Goal-Upgrade Services, Resolve Problem Areas
- More efficient hauling
- Safer& cleaner
- Easier loading heights
- More environmental control of runoff and dust
- Improved traffic flow
- Adding requested services
o Mulch sales
o HHW
o Expanded recycling
Capital Improvements cost, Targeted Expenses, Targeted Revenues, and SWCC Househole
4-R Fee (tables)
Conclusions
- Recommendations:
o Move forward with SWCC improvement program
o Begin planning of Walnut Grove improvements
o Authorize internal financing/budget process inclusion
o Authorize SWCC 4-R Fee concept
- Controls costs, adds service, increases recycling
- Prepares Orange County SWCC for the future
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
o Reduce double/triple handling
o Increase densities at SWCCs to lower hauling costs
- Continue to Enhance Services
o Citizens like the SWCC program for many reasons
o Interest and potential for adding new recyclable materials
o Continued commercial recycling interest in SWCCs
- Presents opportunity to proactively prepare for hauling to Durham
o After landfill closure, SWCCs will be primary solid waste infrastructure in the
county
The Process — 2007 to Now
- Examined Range of Options
o Different levels of site improvements
■ Modernizing all five sites equally
■ Low cost option — installing compactors only
■ Neighborhood/district approach
o Various fee structures (annual, gate, per-bag)
- Evaluated Financial Performance and Public Preferences
- Rated Against Weighted Decision Criteria
- Final Ranking and Recommendation
Key Design Features
- Paved surfaces
o Prevent containers from digging into the gravel
o Prevent ponding
o Eliminate blown dust
o Improve safety and ease of spill cleanup
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 (neighborhood) 216 14
Bradshaw (neighborhood) 152 13
Total costs 2,500 182
Operational Savings from Capital Improvements
- Fewer hauls — due to compacted material
- Use of less expensive roll-off truck
- 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 Labor 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
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the various fees.
Gayle Wilson explained this:
- Base fee is $37/year
- Urban resident with curbside and base fee = $89/year
- Rural resident with curbside recycling = $75/year
- Rural resident without curbside recycling = $37/year
- Multi-family unit with multi-family service = $56/year
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the 4R proposal.
Gayle Wilson said that they would work with the tax office to design the form and try to
treat it just like the current 3R fee.
Commissioner Foushee said that the County Commissioners had asked to look at the
costs of opening all of the SWCC 6 days a week. Frank Clifton said that would come as part
of the budget process. The issue is the cost of staffing.
Commissioner Foushee said that she needs that information now in order to provide
direction to staff as requested.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the Solid Waste Work Group talked about trying to get
the larger centers to have longer operational hours. This would provide some assurance that
citizens would have a place to go on most any day.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that the work group thought that the larger centers that
accept all materials would be open six days a week. It was suggested to have some of the
centers to stay open until 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner McKee said that he is glad to see the proposal of extended hours since
this is a long suffering issue for rural residents. He said that these SWCCs are open to all
residents to Orange County but what he has a problem with is having the rural residents being
charged a higher rate than urban users because of the possibility of less use from the urban
residents.
Commissioner Hemminger said that a lot of these changes are great ideas, but they
may not need them all at once. She asked if staff could prioritize the requests.
Commissioner Hemminger said that the number one comment that she has heard from
citizens is that they would rather have expanded hours as opposed to improvements.
Commissioner Yuhasz pointed out the operating expenses and said that the County is
actually saving money in the long run by phasing in improvements.
Commissioner Gordon said that she understands the pros and cons, but the budget is
so constrained right now. She said that the improvements are fairly costly now.
Frank Clifton said that the real issue is the revenue stream to support the extended
hours and the other aspects. The primary focus is getting the centers open more and getting
the revenue stream to support it.
Chair Pelissier said that she does not see this as tied to the current budget since the
enterprise fund will take care of it outside of the hours of operation. These improvements can
be done without increasing the General Fund expenses. She said that if the fuel costs
continue to go up, then the actual savings of the compactors would be even greater. Also,
there is a solid waste goal of reducing per capita solid waste stream. She said that food waste
is another issue and this would be a step in that direction to make it easier for people to reduce
their waste stream.
Gayle Wilson said that many of the additional services have little to no costs and simply
need a reliable space and oversight to make them happen. He said that improving the district
sites will enable significant additional expansion of recycling opportunities and material.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about recovering food waste from the school systems.
Gayle Wilson said that the Board is due for a report in April about school food waste.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the County does not own all of these sites and he
hesitates to pave a site that does not belong to the County. He suggested having a longer-
term lease on these types of sites.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the phasing of center upgrades and said that
if they are doing Walnut Grove, then the next one should be Ferguson or Bradshaw to
alternate the areas of the County. He asked about the possibility of making mattress drop-off
available at district sites.
Frank Clifton said that the hours could be expanded and then tied to implementing the
fee, and then beginning the process of bringing forth the first project.
Gayle Wilsons said that he would look into allowing mattress drop-off at the district
sites. Regarding the order of the improvements, he said that the reason he put Ferguson and
Bradshaw last was that there had been some people that suggested that another site should
be pursued because Bradshaw is not really expandable.
Commissioner Gordon said that in the short term the overall budget picture is not yet
known. Also, a fee seems like a tax and it appears the voters will be asked to vote for another
sales tax. Some of the biggest complaints she has heard have been on the 3R fee.
Chair Pelissier asked if the Board would like to pursue the expanded hours from the
General Fund.
Commissioner Gordon said that there could be a modest increase in hours and then
the fee could be considered in a later budget year.
Frank Clifton suggested not adding a general fund expense in this fiscal year. He
suggested that anything that is done be planned for next fiscal year.
Commissioner Gordon suggested not doing anything right now because of the serious
budget situation.
Chair Pelissier said that the issue before the Board is whether or not to pursue the 4R
fee.
Commissioner Hemminger said that she is only interested in the 4R fee going to the
expansion of hours.
Commissioner Foushee said that this would be her caveat as well.
Commissioner Yuhasz said that he is hesitant to implement the fee without committing
to the improvements to the convenience centers. He would like to have a commitment to
improving the convenience centers.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed. He suggested having the proposal come back to the
Board because there is a general agreement to start off with expansion of hours and then
move towards something.
Commissioner McKee said that he is willing to have this come back for discussion with
the 4R fee. He is not opposed to the fee, but he is adamantly opposed to imposing a fee on a
group at a higher level than a different group. He said that the fee should be equal across the
County for every citizen if there is equal access to that service.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 PM .
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna S. Baker, CMC
Clerk to the Board