Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19990630APPROVED 1217199 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING June 30, 1999 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in special session on Wednesday June 30, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Alice M. Gordon, and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs. COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill. COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Albert Kittrell, and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below). NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. 1. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA The Board of County Commissioners observed a moment of silence in tribute to Michael Hooker, Chancellor of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, who passed away June 29, 1999. The County Commissioners expressed their respect for Chancellor Hooker and his regret at Dr. Hooker's passing too soon. An addition was made to the Consent Agenda concerning the Orange County Home Consortium Agreement. However, this was not heard because a special meeting called by the Chair cannot have items added to the agenda. 2. CITIZEN & AUDIENCE COMMENTS a. Matters on the Printed Agenda Chair Gordon stated that citizens who have indicated a desire to speak on items that appear on the printed agenda will be recognized at the appropriate time. b. Matters not on the Printed Agenda These comments will be heard as the Board addresses the items on the agenda below. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Alice M. Gordon dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 3. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Brown requested additional information regarding the Small Area Plan for the Town of Carrboro. Planning Director Craig Benedict indicated that the Town of Carrboro would be advertising for membership on their advisory committee. Commissioner Jacobs stated he would like to receive feedback to the Commissioners' response to the budget process, particularly addressing how changes are made to the process. 4. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT County Manager John Link distributed an updated map of the Southern Human Services Center site plan, as he believes this may be helpful to the Board when discussing InterFaith Council's potential inclusion of the Homestead site in their future plans. He requested that Purchasing Director Pamela Jones give a brief orientation on the legend and the length of the lease now held by IFC. The map is incorporated into these minutes by reference. Purchasing Director Jones will provide a copy to Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County knows anything about the plans that the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill may have for the Horace Williams tract. Purchasing Director Jones stated that the University had purchased a 100-foot access along the western perimeter. Commissioner Jacobs questioned whether the Board had voted to approve the site for the Senior Center and Purchasing Director Jones stated that the Board had indeed approved the site. Commissioner Halkiotis questioned whether staff is assuming that IFC will request from the Board a site, or if there is going to be a formalized process. Commissioner Brown asked for a footprint of the IFC buildings, as well as a status report and update as to the usage of the buildings. Purchasing Director Jones indicated she would provide this to Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown further stated that she had heard that one of the buildings is not in use and requested that staff obtain a written response from IFC regarding that situation. Manager Link reported that he will communicate with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that the Board of County Commissioners could not take action on the Home Consortium Agreement and request that HUD allow the Board to act on this matter at the August 17, 1999 meeting. He will also indicate the intention of Orange County to participate in this program next year on behalf of the Board. 5. RESOLUTIONSIPROCLAMATIONS - NONE 6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS - NONE 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 8. ITEMS FOR DECISION - CONSENT AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve those items on the Consent Agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes for February 2, 1999 as corrected. b. Approval of Option Contract for Land Purchase The Board approved a contract for an option to purchase land in Orange County from Duke University for the purpose of meeting the Board's goals for watershed protection and rural character preservation. This would be the first County purchase for resource conservation related to a new initiative for acquisition of some of the County's most important resources. The Board initiated plans for a Land Resource Acquisition Program in December 1998, and a draft program is under development, with plans for review by the Board in September 1999. C. Connection of the Old Redman Mobile Homes Building to the Efland Sewer System The Board approved the proposed extension of the Efland sewer system as necessary to serve the existing Redman Mobile Home building, located on Redman Crossing in the western end of the Efland-Cheeks community. Additionally, staff presented a recommendation that the Board agree, at least in principle, to: 1. Allow the Redman Mobile Home building to be provided with sewer service from the Efland sewer system by means of a wastewater pumping station and force main: and Enter into an agreement(s) as necessary with Barber & Ross Company (proposed occupant of the Redman Mobile Homes building), Norfolk- Southern Railroad/NC Railroad Company and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) whereby the County accepts ownership/maintenance responsibility for approximately 3,000 feet of wastewater force main to be constructed by Barber & Ross in the railroad and NCDOT rights-of-way between the Redman Mobile Homes building (along Redman Crossing and Highway 70) and the western end of the gravity portion of the Efland sewer system. d. Adoption of the 1999-2000 County Commissioners' Goal -Affordable Housing The Board approved a goal to promote a collaborative and effective approach for addressing affordable housing in Orange County which ensures long-term affordability. The Board has expressed a continuing interest in promoting a collaborative, countywide approach to addressing the affordable housing problem in Orange County. The preparation of the Consolidated Housing Plan for Orange County developed in 1995 as a federal requirement has provided a framework for this collaboration. The 1995 Plan is a five-year plan which expires in June 2000, at which time, a new action plan will need to be developed. VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS 9. ITEMS FOR DECISION - REGULAR AGENDA a. Evaluation Instrument for County Manager The Board considered a response to the draft format and content of a revised evaluation instrument for the County Manager. Dr. Kurt Jenne of the Institute of Government presented a draft evaluation instrument for the Board's review and comment. This evaluation instrument consisted of three (3) major parts. Part One deals with the knowledge and skills necessary for effective local government management. It contains criteria that are used to measure how well the County Manager carries out the tasks for which he/she is responsible. These criteria generally reflect the knowledge and skills the County Manager brings to the job. They should reflect, for the most part, what the Commissioners would expect of the County Manager, no matter what specific tasks it assigned in a given year, even though the Commissioners did not specifically adopt or communicate these to the County Manager at the beginning of the evaluation period. Part Two deals with the management of the Commissioners' priorities for the current year. It contains specific objectives that the Commissioners assigned to the County Manager when it adopted the current year's budget. These criteria reflect outcomes or results for which the Commissioners hold the County Manager responsible. One item to consider when rating the County Manager's performance by these objectives in February, prior to the anniversary date, is that progress up until that time would be for six (6) out of the 12 months of the fiscal year. Part Three deals with summary comments on the County Manager's performance. It provides the opportunity to express general observations about the County Manager's overall performance as a whole and gives the Commissioners a place to make an overall rating. For each criterion in the evaluation, the Commissioners are asked to rate the County Manager on a scale from one (1) to five (5), according to how well he/she has met expectations for that criterion. There are three (3) reference points on the scale which are: Exceeds Expectations (5): The County Manager's performance clearly exceeds the Commissioners' expectations, even of somebody fully qualified to do the job of Orange County Manager. Meets Expectations (3): The County Manager's performance meets your expectations of someone fully qualified to do the job. Does Not Meet Expectations (1): The County Manager's performance does not meet the Commissioners' expectations of someone fully qualified to do the job and needs to significantly improve. Beside the rating scale for each criterion is a place to mark Unable to Rate. This option is offered to the Commissioners so they are not forced to make a numerical rating when it is felt that there is not enough valid information with which to make a fair judgment. Dr. Jenne said that he has a list of questions for the Board's written response that will be helpful to both him and the County Manager in developing a final draft for the Board's final review and approval after the summer break. Dr. Jenne is interested in knowing if this is the general approach that the Board wishes to take. He noted that for most boards, this evaluation instrument is not static, but changes from year-to-year, based on specific objectives. Dr. Jenne stated he would include all comments in the final document. He also made reference to the Manager's evaluation of other staff. He believes that the Board can state this in a general way and that during the course of the evaluation, the Board can go into closed session to discuss in very specific terms the performance of an employee under the Manager's supervision. The Board thanked Dr. Jenne for all the work he has invested in this document. Manager Link made reference to Part One of the instrument and stated that it would aid him to have examples of certain areas of the document. In terms of structure for board agendas, he would appreciate knowing the Board objectives for changing the structure for board agendas. There is no additional financial impact to Orange County. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve providing a written response to Dr. Jenne after summer break. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. b. Appointments The Board considered appointments of Commissioners to task forces and committees, as well as appointments of volunteers to advisory boards and commissions. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs that the Commissioner task forces be approved as listed below: Part A - Appointments of Commissioners to Task Forces/Committees a. Task Forces with Board of County Commissioner members: Cable Casting Board of County Commissioners Meeting Commissioners Brown and Carey Citizens' Guide Commissioner Jacob Tax Bill Inserts Commissioner Brown County Space Needs Inventory Commissioners Gordon and Brown Innovation and Efficiency Commissioners Halkiotis and Jacobs Value Engineering Commissioners Brown and Jacobs Master Plan for the Homestead Road Campus Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis Quick Response Team Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis County Representative to the NCA CC Conference in August 1999 Commissioner Carey IFC Shelter Alternatives Task Force Commissioners Gordon and Halkiotis State of North Carolina Solid Waste Meeting One Commissioner is requested to attend the meeting as stipulated in the originating memorandum from the Orange Regional Landfill. The Board will make a decision on this at a later meeting. Board of County Commissioners Rules and Regulations Commissioner Gordon and Clerk Beverly Blythe Resolution for Appointments to County Boards and Commissions Commissioner Gordon and Clerk Beverly Blythe VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chapel Hill Northern Community Park Aquatic/Community Center Advisory Committee: The Town of Chapel Hill formally requested that Orange County appoint a representative to the Northern Community Park Aquatic/Community Center Advisory Committee. The Board appointed Commissioner Margaret Brown to serve on this committee. 2. Part B - Appointments of Volunteers to Advisory Board and Commissions: Advisory Board on Aging - A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint to the Advisory Board on Aging S. Grady Fullerton and Ruth Morning for terms ending June 30, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board - A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Margi Rice and Dave Walters for terms ending June 30, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Commission for Women The Board chose to delay appointments for an opportunity to recruit other applicants to seek diversity. Economic Development Commission (EDC) - A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown to appoint George Horton to the EDC for a term ending June 30, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Leslie Carol Weaver, Patrick Marshall and John Brady for terms ending June 30, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. Orange County Board of Adjustment - A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint Mary Kruger to the Orange County Board of Adjustment for a term ending June 30, 2001. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Steve Medlin to the Orange County Board of Adjustment for a term ending June 30, 2002. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Orange County Planning Board For the Bingham representative, the Board decided to pursue advertising for volunteers and to postpone filling this position until the August 1999 meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Lynn Holtkamp to the Orange County Planning Board to fill an unexpired term ending March 31, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Onie L. Lea to the Orange County Planning Board for a term ending March 31, 2001. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reappoint Robert Strayhorn to the Orange County Planning Board for a term ending March 31, 2002.® VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Solid Waste Management Interlocal Agreement (All documents referred to are in the Permanent Agenda File in the Clerk's Office) The Board considered approval of an interlocal agreement between the County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, that would govern the future structure of solid waste management in Orange County. County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill summarized the changes made to this agreement since the previous meeting. At the June 15, 1999 meeting, the Board discussed concerns with several aspects of the Town of Chapel Hill's reaction to the June 1, 1999 version of the draft solid waste management interlocal agreement. Due to time constraints, the County Commissioners did not complete its review and discussion of the agreement. The Board's concerns, as well as reaction to portions of the June 1, 1999 draft from the Chapel Hill and Carrboro governing boards, have been summarized in a memorandum from Attorney Bob Jessup. Mayor Waldorf of Chapel Hill sent a letter which transmitted a resolution adopted at the June 21, 1999 meeting of the Chapel Hill Town Council. This resolution modifies the Town's previous position regarding the disposition of the Greene Tract. The Board reviewed Chapel Hill's resolution and considered any modifications that may be necessary as a basis for the Chair to sign the interlocal agreement with Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. Draft suggested amendments to the current version of the interlocal agreement will be prepared and are intended to allay any remaining Board concerns about the disposition of the Greene Tract, and other issues not previously addressed by the Board. These amendments will be circulated for the Board's consideration during the first part of the week of June 28, 1999. The financial impact for Orange County, by adoption of the interlocal agreement, will affect the administration of solid waste operations and the Landfill Enterprise Fund. However, it will have no direct impact on the County General Fund, which will not be a source of underwriting for overall solid waste management operations. Those will continue to be fully financed by the Landfill Enterprise Fund. The Manager recommends that the Board approve the interlocal agreement, subject to any required modifications and review by the County Attorney, and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board agreed by consensus to add on page one of the agreement what was underlined on the draft, and on page 18, the definition of solid waste management plan, and on page one, policy in bold and underscored language. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept the corrections and/or additions mentioned above. VOTE: UNANIMOUS On page 3, the effective date addresses a concern about the resolution of the Greene Tract and also addresses the boundaries of the Greene Tract that would be available for solid waste use. Attorney Gledhill stated that the effective date links to the agreement and the County taking over the solid waste management responsibilities with the change in zoning. A substantial amount of time will be required to complete the objective on a timely basis. The objective states that the County staff and Chapel Hill staff will have six (6) months to complete the transition, and all other activities hinge on that date. Commissioner Jacobs questioned why the Board would not separate the boundary language about contract zoning, since these are two (2) separate issues. Attorney Gledhill stated that the County is not approaching this as contract zoning and that the key is that the Board is not willing to take over solid waste management unless Chapel Hill is willing to zone the necessary 60 acres. Commissioner Jacobs asked what conditions the Board has set. Attorney Gledhill stated that there are three (3) items desired: two (2) conditions and the requisite time to get ready. This is a complicated issue because there is a serious and valid concern among the two (2) managers to have this project on-line by January 1, 2000. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept all proposed changes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to change "advisory commission" to "advisory board". VOTE: UNANIMOUS On pages 6 and 7, there is reference to fees that can be charged by the Board of County Commissioners and one other party to the agreement (both governmental fees and other fees). A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the fee arrangement. VOTE: AFFIRMED: Commissioners Gordon, Brown, Carey, and Halkiotis OPPOSED: Commissioner Jacobs On pages where there are two (2) versions, the reimbursement amount is left in place in version B. Version A states "'Reimbursement Amount means, (1) in the case of disposition to a North Carolina local government that is also a Party, (1) $608,823.00, being the original purchase price of the Greene Tract, multiplied (b) by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of whole acres of the Greene Tract being disposed and the denominator of which is 169, plus (c) uncompounded interest on the product of (a) and (b) at the annual rate of 6.00 percent from March 30, 1984, to the effective date of any disposition, and (2) in the case of any other disposition, the greater of either (1) the Reimbursement Amount to a North Carolina local government that is also a Party, or (b) the net proceeds of a sale after the costs of the sale are paid". The definition of reimbursement amount is on the pink sheet as distributed and on page 18, at the bottom, and continues at the top of page 19 of the yellow sheet, with pink being the most recent version. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to accept the version B language in response to reimbursement which provides for negotiation of the amounts, leaving it to the process, and asking that Chapel Hill trust that process in how the remaining 109 acres will be used. At the bottom of page 9, there would not be a definition included in the document and there would be a bargaining issue. Chair Gordon stated that she would prefer to see the reimbursement amount put in to eliminate a problem before the agreement is signed. Commissioner Brown questioned whether any of these versions directly address the issue if ever the Greene Tract is privately sold. Attorney Gledhill said the last four (4) lines on the pink sheet address that issue. Commissioner Carey stated that the comments he has heard have to do with the process. VOTE: AFFIRMED: Commissioners Carey and Jacobs OPPOSED: Commissioners Gordon, Brown, and Halkiotis A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept version A. VOTE: AFFIRMED: Commissioners Gordon, Brown, and Halkiotis OPPOSED: Commissioners Carey and Jacobs A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to accept the rest of the document, approving pages 9 and 10. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The last changes are on page 24 regarding the advisory board. The first change under subsection G is that the advisory board would take up such matters that any governing board the County Manager may request, and the changes included in the procedures section are that the procedures the advisory board would have would be consistent with the County's rules and regulations. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the changes on pages 24, 25, and 26. VOTE: UNANIMOUS An overall motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the agreement as amended and to forward the document to the other parties of the agreement indicating that this is the form which has been approved, and asking that they consider the matter as soon as possible, hopefully by July 15, 1999, approving the timeline that Manager Link distributed, and authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement in this form on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Value Engineerinq Consultant Section The Board considered authorizing County staff to complete negotiations on an agreement with Pacific Environmental Services (PES) to conduct constructibility reviews for two (2) schools, and to endorse a second phase of the selection process for a value engineering firm. Purchasing Director Pam Jones made the presentation. She indicated that the staff has moved rather expeditiously on the selection of a value engineering consultant since both school systems have projects that are imminent and could benefit from the expert advice of a value engineer. The desire of the Board to gain better control of resources associated with construction of County and school facilities is well documented. Value engineering was identified as a potential answer to this issue. As clarification, value engineering is a process whereby each and every aspect of a project is reviewed by an unbiased third party, in collaboration with the other key players, such as the designer and school and/or County personnel. In order to assure that value engineering resources were available for the school projects during the summer, the selection panel undertook an intensive process to bring forward a recommendation at this time for Board consideration. The selection process was enlightening, and brought a new perspective about what a whole value engineering program should be, and what could be expected of a properly executed program. The interviewing consultants supported what has been heard before, which is that value engineering is most effective when it is started early in the process of project development. Since bidding for the middle school project in Chapel Hill and the elementary school in Orange County is imminent, these projects would not experience the full benefit of value engineering. If the Commissioners desire to pursue any functional elements of value engineering for these two (2) projects, it is recommended that the Board consider retaining PES to conduct constructibility reviews for the projects. The costs quoted by PES for this work is $39,295.00 per school. Although the costs are significant, PES indicated that each project will easily surpass the fee in the amount saved on the project and it will provide a good benchmark for the County to more fully understand the benefits of the value engineering process. A complete report detailing the substance of the savings will be provided by PES at the end of the review process. Assuming that the Board approves this plan to acquire value engineering services, it is further recommended that the Manager communicate to the Superintendents the Board's desire to see value engineering incorporated into the earliest stages of development of any school. This would be particularly important as to the design development of the new high school for the Orange County system. As to financial impact, it is recommended that funds to cover the costs for this work be appropriated from the School Capital Project Fund Balance. Potential project savings should offset the cost of this appropriation. The Manager recommends that the Board authorize County staff to complete negotiations on an agreement with Pacific Environmental Services to conduct constructibility reviews for two (2) schools, whose total costs shall not exceed $78,590.00; authorize the Manager to sign the resulting agreement; to endorse a second phase of the selection process for a value engineering firm; and to direct the Manager to communicate to the School Superintendents, the Board's intention for value engineering on future school projects. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he believes that the County is very late in the process for both systems. The Smith facility will be going out for bids in September or October 1999, and the elementary school in Orange County is a prototype building, which has been previously built three (3) times. Commissioner Halkiotis also expressed his disappointment with the cost of hiring PES as consultants on these projects, particularly since the consultants had indicated that they would be able to train County staff in this process. He believes use of the consultants is too expensive and too late to be of benefit to the school projects, and he would rather support hiring a full-time County employee to serve in a value engineering overseer capacity. Commissioner Carey stated that this type of consultant would work best if brought into any project from its inception. He questioned whether this action would delay the school projects from going out for bid. Purchasing Director Jones explained the process that the consultants followed. If July 8, 1999 is the submission date for bids, there may be some limited opportunities for savings with the Chapel Hill middle school project. Chair Gordon questioned why the consultants fee was as large as quoted. Purchasing Director Jones referred the Board to the cost breakdown sheet included in the agenda abstract. Commissioner Brown stated that she was very surprised at the proposed cost of the consultants' services on these two (2) projects. Purchasing Director Jones explained that the team of consultants would meet for one (1) entire week to complete their evaluation. During this time, they would meet with the relevant school system to determine what does and does not functionally work on that project. Commissioner Brown stated that this was not exactly how she believed the consultants would function; rather, she believed there would be someone assigned to work full-time to work with the two (2) school systems. Commissioner Brown further stated that she believes the County needs to pursue more information with regard to this issue. Commissioner Jacobs stated that if the Orange County schools are going to bid within the following week, then it is already too late to pursue this course of action. However, he does not agree that it is too late to utilize this process with the Smith Middle School project and he would be comfortable attempting this process on that project. He agrees that any value engineering consultant should be involved in the process from its inception. Commissioner Jacobs believes the County needs to send a letter to the two (2) school boards involved stating that our decision was based on time constraints. Commissioner Carey stated that the County needs to proceed with establishing a value engineering process, even if it is only for one (1) project. Chair Gordon stated that the County should follow through with obtaining a value engineering firm, but that she is not comfortable singling out one (1) school system at this time. She believes that the optimal usage of the County's funds would be to hire a firm that would be capable of performing all necessary functions to ensure value engineering goals are met. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he believes that the County needs to better define and justify the costs for these schools and that this initiative is long overdue, with the need having existed for several years. Commissioner Carey made reference to the policy whereby the Board of County Commissioners will be making decisions at each step in the process, and these decisions will be made based on the County Commissioners' judgment only. Commissioner Carey stated that he would be uncomfortable following this policy unless a value engineering process exists so the Board can learn whatever information it needs to make an informed decision. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve a maximum expenditure of $39,000.00 for the Smith Middle School project. VOTE: AFFIRMED: Commissioners Carey and Jacobs OPPOSED: Commissioners Gordon, Brown, and Halkiotis Commissioner Brown stated that one well-experienced person could work very effectively with the schools and she is still interested in pursuing value engineering. She believes the committee that has been formed could address this issue. A motion was made by Commission Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the second phase of the value engineering process. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Preliminary Assessment of Proposed Hillsborough Place Development The Board received a preliminary report on the proposed Hillsborough Place Development. Orange County Planning staff were directed to review documentation related to the proposed Hillsborough Place mixed-use development to be located south of Hillsborough in the northeast quadrant of the 1-40/Old NC 86 interchange. A report was written which identified the primary issues with this development, and includes: traffic, economic development design and MTC Guidelines, public service impacts (schools, parks, police, fire, EMS, and so forth), environmental Issues/open space/landscape aspects, development review, and miscellaneous. With regard to traffic, this project is the linchpin of the important 1-86/1-40 triangle, and brings with it many necessary improvements to Old NC 86, NC 86, internal roads within the development, the proposed Hillsborough Bypass, the Churton Street/Old NC 86 expansion, and future connectivity to a potential rail station north of this project. As to the economic development district, the intent of the 1-40/Old NC 86 district is to create a business park setting. Outparcels are discouraged, including freestanding service stations, restaurants, and retail buildings. Dine-in restaurants and retail uses within consolidated buildings is permitted. There is no public service impact analysis within the application document, so County Planning staff made a cursory analysis with the information provided. Neither a school site nor parks have been proposed in the development plan. Parcels C, E, I, N, P, G, L, H, K, and I are proposed to privately contract for garbage pickup, while the Town of Hillsborough proposes to collect garbage on parcels A, B, and D, which is primarily fee simple residential. EMS facilities are located approximately three (3) miles from the site. The expenditure/revenue projections for this project cannot be determined at this time with the available project information and the existing fiscal analysis software of the County. This project is within the Neuse River Watershed basin and has relatively higher elevations. The site serves as a head waters area near a basin divide with little or no permanent streams. The site is completely forested with pine forest, pine/hardwoods mix forest, and hardwood forest. There are no major environmentally sensitive areas noted at this time. The open space plan attempts to preserve small areas of forest, but because of the large impervious requirements of non-residential development and development elevation changes, limited areas of forest are preserved in the concept plan. The landscape plans include entry features and streetscapes are well designed. The internal roadway corridors create a consistent theme to assist in the developer's overall architectural design concept. As to development review, physical design features exist to unify the development and to create compatibility with neighboring areas. A project of this scale and use should develop a high-intensity erosion control program, including full use of phasing and BMPs. Additionally, a project of this magnitude would, under most growth management guidelines, be considered a "Development of Regional Impact (DRI)". The impact affects more than one (1) jurisdiction, and accordingly, should be reviewed jointly, with full input from affected parties, including the County, the school district, and transportation MPOs. An annexation feasibility study should be conducted which relates to the timing and ability of all affected parties to adequately provide the area with essential public services. Presently, there is not enough building division staff and fee structure to accommodate this project. Commissioner Halkiotis stated that any children who reside in this proposed development will attend New Hope Elementary School and A.L. Stanback Middle School, both of which are already operating beyond capacity. Commissioner Jacobs stated he would prefer to request an annexation feasibility study to address some of the Board's concerns, as well as assess the environmental impact of this proposed project to the surrounding areas. He stated that there appear to be too many aspects that have not been properly addressed to act on the request. Commissioner Jacobs suggested delaying any action until the Board has had time to further review this project. He further suggested offering the expertise of County staff to aid the Town of Hillsborough in assessing the impact of this project, and stated that this would be an opportunity to work together on considering the project. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown that in the interest of cooperative planning, the Board of County Commissioners respectfully request that the Town of Hillsborough do an impact study and delay any action on the project until the Board of County Commissioners have an opportunity to review any potential impact, as well as allow for any elected boards an opportunity to review the total impact of the project. VOTE: UNANIMOUS f. Strategic Communications Plan The Board considered the proposed Orange County Board of Commissioners' Strategic Communications Plan. Earlier in 1999, County staff drafted a Strategic Communications Plan for the Board's consideration. The purpose of the plan is to promote more effective communication between and among the Board of County Commissioners and Orange County citizens. Public access to government and freely shared information are cornerstones of the democratic process, and thus, the plan should simplify access to the Board and to the workings of the Orange County government. The plan should also establish guidelines, policies, and vehicles for accomplishing the Board's goals for effective communication. The proposed plan consists of an overview, an outline on the use of cable television to further the Board's communication goals, a section on press releases and media relations, establishing direct telephone access, optimal utilization of the County's Internet and Intranet sites, an outline of other communication devices, and a section on crisis management. Commissioners Gordon and Jacobs have revised the draft to take into consideration recently adopted Commissioners' goals for 1999-2000, and several important elements that they believe should be included in an effective communications strategy for the County. The financial impact is undetermined at this time. The Manager recommends that the Board review the proposed plan and provide appropriate direction to County staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the Strategic Communications Plan in concept, to request County staff to develop timetable, establish projected costs, and determine what financing arrangements are necessary for the plan, and to ask the Information Technology (IT) Committee for their input. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 10. REPORTS a. Y21K Implementation Status Report - Orange County Critical Systems and Public Utilities The Board received a report on County preparations to deal with Year 2000 technology challenges. Certain critical County services cannot be allowed to have a lapse in service for any period of time. These critical services, along with the required support systems, are identified below: Emergency Management • 9-1-1 dispatching capabilities • Telephone service, both internal and external • Infrastructure services such as water, power, HVAC for the facility • Emergency power supplied through an onsite emergency generator • Ambulances: All onboard equipment that could include embedded chips, vehicles, and communications equipment. Volunteer Fire Department • Communications equipment Vehicles Jail Cell lock system Communications equipment Sheriffs Office • Communications equipment • Vehicles Central Services • Telephone system Sewer DSS Efland sewer lift stations and emergency power Support systems in place to allow adult/child protective services to operate. Other functions, while extremely important, are one step down from the level of criticality attached to the above life/safety functions. These include, but are not limited to, systems such as DSS' ability to process entitlements and applications to operate the County's business system; e.g., finance, purchasing, payroll, and so forth, land records system, and tax collection system. These will undergo the same level of compliance testing as the aforementioned items; however, in some cases, their compliance may not be assured until later this summer. Work on other less critical systems will continue over the summer. The County's public information effort related to Y2K compliance will also receive increased emphasis over the summer. This fall, the Y2K coordinator will assist County staff in contingency planning for continuity of the most important County services, should circumstances beyond the County's control; e.g., widespread availability of electrical power, preclude normal operations and prevent the use of automated systems that the County has rendered Y2K compliant. Extensive documentation of County assessment, repair, testing, and validation efforts to date are maintained by the Y2K Coordinator and are available for review. Funding for most of the necessary County technology replacement and repairs has already been included in the current CIP and current or previous operating budgets. If additional costs are noted during the completion of the County's Y2K implementation plan, they can be addressed through a Y2K reserve in the 1999-2000 CIP or through other County financial reserves, as the Board decides. Jim McGenzie stated that all goals established to be completed by June 21, 1999 will be accomplished. Further, he stated that the County is now entering another phase for the next three (3) months to work toward total Y2K compliance. Additionally, a news release will be distributed outlining the goals and progress on the County's Y2K compliance. The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report for information only. b. New Assistant to the Manager Position The Board considered this item to provide comments to the County Manager on the proposed Assistant to the Manager position. John Link asked that the Board provide comments to him on the working list of anticipated responsibilities. The report was received for information only. C. Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Gene Bell presented a report on the work of the Water and Sewer Service Boundary Task Force and asked the Board to consider for discussion the "final" version of the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement. The elected boards of Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough, and the appointed Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) Board of Directors adopted resolutions in April 1994 to create a Water and Sewer Service Boundary Task Force to develop water and sewer service boundaries for the County's service providers. Commissioner Moses Carey served as Chair of the Task Force that began meeting in June 1994. In December 1994, the Task Force issued a preliminary report with a "straw" set of service boundaries, accompanied by a list of interrelated objectives to be addressed. In 1995, the elected and appointed boards passed resolutions agreeing at different levels of detail with the initial report, and charged the Task Force to continue meeting to work through the issues and service boundaries. After almost five (5) years of diligent work, the Task Force is pleased to present the "final" version of the Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement. There is no financial impact at this time. The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report for information only at this time. d. Joint Master Recreation and Parks Report The Board reviewed the report of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. In November 1997, the Board created the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group. The group was charged to update and modify the Master Recreation and Parks Plan to be a joint long- range capital facilities plan, including an inventory of all facilities, an assessment of needs and standards, and a review of payment-in-lieu programs and parkland acquisition goals. The Work Group, comprised of elected board and advisory board representatives from each jurisdiction, has worked to explore these and other topics. The report, completed on May 25, 1999, contains a number of recommendations for the County and other jurisdictions. The Executive Summary provided in the report addresses the following questions and/or concerns: • Where are we now? • Where do we go from here? • Adequate provision of parkland and natural corridors • Coordinated land acquisition for parks • Payment-in-lieu programs • Recommendations. There is no financial impact to the County at this time. Some recommendations of the report, to be considered later, would have financial implications. The Manager recommends that the Board receive this report as information, and that the Board consider the recommendations from the Work Group over the summer, and plan to discuss the report (and subsequent referral to advisory boards) in August or September. 11. APPOINTMENTS - NONE 12. MINUTES - NONE 13. CLOSED SESSION "Pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(1) in order to prevent the disclosure of information that is made privileged or confidential by G.S. -143-318.1 O(e). Consult with the County Attorney concerning a matter that requires the attorney client privilege to be preserved GS143.318;.11(a)(5). A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to go into closed session "Pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(1) in order to prevent the disclosure of information that is made privileged or confidential by G.S. -143-318.1 O(e). Consult with the County Attorney concerning a matter that requires the attorney client privilege to be preserved GS143.318;.11(a)(5). VOTE: UNANIMOUS 14. ADJOURNMENT With no further items to be considered, Chair Gordon adjourned the meeting. The next meeting or the approved calendar is scheduled for August 17 at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Alice M. Gordon, Chair Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk