Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-12-2011 APPROVED 8/23/2011 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION April 12, 2011 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, April 12, 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. Resolution Expressinq Oranqe County's Opposition to Senate Bill 183 Reqardinq Requlation of Veqetation Removal For Outdoor Advertisinq Structures and Preemption of Local Government Land Use Authority for the Placement and Type of Outdoor Advertisinq (Billboards) Commissioner Jacobs said that he and Greg Wilder used the model from Raleigh City Council for this resolution. He said that he did some research on the 1965 Highway Beautification Act in which there was a fund for governments to buy billboards. The 1965 federal law was to codify that and make it national policy. He made reference to an article from the NY Times and said that if a regular billboard can be replaced with an electronic billboard, it is worth ten times as much. There is a lot of research about how dangerous it is to have roadside distractions. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he wants to make sure that it is not the County's intention to manage billboards that existed as of a certain date. He does not want this to be construed as opposing the existing right of the State to regulate with regard to existing billboards. Commissioner Jacobs said that the resolution purposely does not speak to this issue. He would like the County's own ordinances to apply. Chair Pelissier asked if this could be put on the consent agenda next week and the Board agreed by consensus. Commissioner Gordon said that she thought the Board was going to try and deal with it tonight. Commissioner Jacobs said that when he brought this up last week he thought they would put this at the beginning of a meeting because it is a legislative matter and may need to be done expeditiously. A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the Resolution Expressing Orange County's Opposition to Senate Bill 183 Regarding Regulation of Vegetation Removal For Outdoor Advertising Structures and Preemption of Local Government Land Use Authority for the Placement and Type of Outdoor Advertising (Billboards). VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Hemminger asked about making motions on work sessions and the County Commissioners' policy. Commissioner Gordon said that ordinarily the Board does not make motions during work sessions. The only difference with this is that it was brought forward at a regular meeting and noticed. She said that she thinks it is important not to break the policy and this was noticed by the posting of the agenda to the web. She thought that the Board agreed that this issue would be ok. Commissioner Jacobs said that the practice has been if there are items that need to be addressed in a timely manner, they have been brought to a work session for action. He said that if there is concern, this could be added to the June work session when Board procedures are discussed. Commissioner Hemminger said that her concern is that the public is aware that the Board normally does not vote on items at a work session. Commissioner Gordon agreed with that sentiment and said that it is important that the Board be transparent. Resolution Expressing Orange County's Opposition To Senate bill 183 Regarding Regulation of Vegetation Removal For Outdoor Advertising Structures and Preemption of Local Government Land Use Authority For the Placement and Type of Outdoor Advertising (Billboards) Whereas, the regulation of outdoor advertising and structures has long been considered a matter best left to local control and regulation, since each local government reflects distinct community values on balancing the demands of commerce with the preservation of the natural and visual environment, making it undesirable, except for the billboard companies, to implement a one-size-fits-all solution for perceived statewide billboard issues; and Whereas, the 1965 federal highway Beautification Act was primarily intended to preserve scenic beauty along the nation's major roadways, particularly by removing and regulating billboards because outdoor advertising structures have long been regarded as aesthetic blemishes, particularly in undeveloped areas, and can also create an unsafe traffic situation, distracting motorists; and Whereas, Orange County has maintained consistent billboard regulations since June 1984 when it adopted its current outdoor sign standards in major transportation corridors (Interstate 40, Interstate 84, U. S. 70, N. C. 86 and N. C. 57) as part of its zoning ordinance; and Whereas, Orange County is noted for its excellent quality of life, based on a longstanding commitment to the preservation of green space, the environment, agriculture, and rural character, and safeguards these attributes and benefits significantly from its tourism and housing industries in part by maintaining the community's outdoor advertising standards consistent with its land use regulations; and Whereas, research cited by the American Planning Association reveals that changeable copy LED billboards can be more distracting to motorists than traditional billboards, even as a body of evidence grows indicating that distractions both within and beyond the vehicle are hazards to safe driving; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its opposition to Senate Bill 183 and any other similar legislation that attempts to 1) preempt local regulation of vegetation removal for outdoor advertising and 2) override local government land use authority regarding the placement and type of outdoor advertising, especially billboards. Be It Further Resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners encourages members of the Orange County legislative delegation to oppose any legislation which preempts local governmental regulation of vegetation removal and landscape requirements for outdoor advertising and/or overrides local government land use authority regarding the placement and type of outdoor advertising (billboards). This the 12th day of April 2011. 2. Resolution Expressinq Oranqe County's Opposition To Senate Bill 462 and House Bill 574 Reqardinq Redirection of Excise Tax Proceeds Away from North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and Natural Heritaqe Trust Fund Commissioner Jacobs said that Dave Stancil drafted this resolution. He said that Orange County just celebrated the opening of Fairview Park, which used $500,000 in PARTF funds to make it possible. A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the Resolution Expressing Orange County's Opposition To Senate Bill 462 and House Bill 574 Regarding Redirection of Excise Tax Proceeds Away from North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and Natural Heritage Trust Fund. Resolution Expressing Orange County's Opposition To Senate Bill 462 and House Bill 574 Regarding Redirection of Excise Tax Proceeds Away from North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and Natural Heritage Trust Fund Whereas, the provision of parks, recreation and open spaces protects quality of life and enhances public health by promoting outdoor activity, sports and exercise opportunities, as well as immense social, natural, and economic benefits and an appreciation of our natural resources; and Whereas, the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund (NHTF) were created to preserve natural areas, protect water quality, create and expand parks, trails and game lands; and Whereas, legislators created these trust funds nineteen years ago and recognized the economic importance of balancing conservation and development, and in so doing dedicated a funding source for the trust funds, which receive almost all of their funding from the deed stamp excise tax from the sale of real estate; and Whereas, Orange County has specifically benefited from funding assistance for the acquisition of parks and open space, the construction of parks and recreation facilities, and the protection of important natural areas and wildlife habitat— receiving $1.25 million in PARTF grants since 2000 for Little River regional Park and natural Area, Cedar Grove Park and the long-awaited and recently opened Fairview Park— as well as other facilities within the municipalities of Orange County (including a future segment of the Mountains to Sea Trail); and Whereas, new legislation filed in the North Carolina House (HB 574) and Senate (SB 462) would take away half of the dedicated funding for the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund (NHTF), redirecting this revenue to the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund largely as a result of lobbying by homebuilders and realtors groups; and Whereas, tourism in North Carolina generated $17 billion in 2010, much of which comes from visitors to state parks, beaches, and outdoor areas — areas that existing thanks to investment from these trust funds, and tourism brings $150 million annually to Orange County, much of it recreation-related; and Whereas, a study by the Trust for Public Land found that investing in conservation lands more than pays for itself with every $1 invested in land conservation returning $4 in economic value from natural resource goods and services alone; and Whereas, NHTF and PARTF revenues are already down significantly due to the real estate slowdown, and the permanent 50% cut that would result from HB 574 and SB 462 would mean that essential conservation projects will not be funded, harming the State's tourism economy, leading to dirtier water and air, and result in a massive decline of parkland, park facilities, and/or gamelands; Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its opposition to Senate Bill 462 and House Bill 574 and any other similar legislation that attempts to redirect funding away from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund, which perform critically-important roles in protecting North Carolina's natural resources and parks and open space. This the 12th day of April 2011. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. Update on Proposed Dissolution of the Hyconeechee Reqional Library Svstem Library Services Director Lucinda Munger said that this is an update about the proposed dissolution of this library system. This change passed and went into effect April 1, 2011. Since September 14th, she and the three library directors have met with the State Librarian and with the Chief of Library Development to go over the new rules and how they would impact the current setup of Hyconeechee. The current financial officer for the region happens to be Orange County Financial Services Director Clarence Grier. Under the new regulations, this would not be allowed. An outside agent would have to be hired, which would cost the region an additional $24,000. She said that the State Library supports the notion of the dissolution of the region and a transition from a regional library system to three independent county library systems. This is shown in a letter that was sent to the Board by the State Librarian. She made reference to a resolution and a dissolution transition plan. Both documents were drafted by the Orange County Attorney's Office. These documents lay out the history of the Hyconeechee library system and a multi-year transition plan. If the Board does vote tomorrow night to go forward with the dissolution, Hyconeechee will still be in existence for one more year as it currently stands. The bottom line financial impact for transitioning to a stand- alone independent county library would be $28,500. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there have been any conversations with these other counties' Managers and/or Commissioners. Lucinda Munger said that the librarians in the other counties have done what she is doing tonight. Frank Clifton pointed out that there are not extra people involved because these people were Orange County staff with additional duties. Commissioner Jacobs said that his recollection was that a letter was to be sent to these other counties and Lucinda Munger said that this letter was sent in December 2010. Commissioner Jacobs said that most of this relates to the parallel conversation with the Town of Chapel Hill, by having a representative to this newly formed advisory board. He would like to have a conversation about the internal functions of having representatives appointed by the Board of County Commissioners over the years and how the County Commissioners want these people to represent them. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 7 of the abstract and the Polaris system and asked if Hyconeechee purchased this and Lucinda Munger said yes. It is housed in Orange County, but the region purchased the system equally between the three parties. Commissioner Jacobs said that if the County is seriously going to develop interoperability, having the freedom to switch systems is important. Lucinda Munger said that the Chapel Hill Library and the Orange County Library are supposed to be presenting to both Boards a report on interoperability in 2012. Discussion ensued on having the same computer program for libraries in the County. Chair Pelissier made reference to the MOU on page 7 and said that there needs to be a timeframe for the development of an MOU so that it does not get lost. She asked for some kind of modification for this so that it does not set up unrealistic expectations. Commissioner McKee suggested taking out that last sentence regarding the five-year transition period for no charge. Chair Pelissier agreed with taking out this last sentence and said to put some sort of reasonable date whereby an MOU should be developed. Commissioner Gordon asked about the agreement of out-of-town cards having no charge and Lucinda Munger clarified that if they went with a different ILS system, a Person County resident could come into any Orange County facility and apply for an Orange County library card at no cost. Commissioner Gordon asked about Lucinda Munger's professional recommendation about this period of no charge being extended. She thinks that this last line should be modified in some way. Frank Clifton said that the issue is not that significant. He said that extending this time period is not a big issue. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there would be a report on library services in northern Orange County and Lucinda Munger said that she is working on a strategic plan for all library services in Orange County. Frank Clifton said that this will be a part of the budget process. 4. Quality Improvement Report From Health Department Health Director Rosemary Summers introduced this item and then turned it over to her staff. She said that this approach was developed from a grant and it was designed to provide quality improvement training for health departments at no cost to the departments. She said that the staff has really embraced this process. Carla Julian, Quality Improvement Manager in the Health Department, made a PowerPoint presentation. Continuous Quality Improvement: Principles and Applications Orange County Health Department April 12, 2011 What is Quality Improvement (QI) ■Continuous and ongoing effort and organizational culture to best achieve measurable improvements in the: ❑efficiency, ❑effectiveness, ❑quality, ❑performance, and ❑outcomes of services and systems Key Features of QI ■Focus on systems, not individuals ■Ideas/changes from customers &front line staff ❑The "intervention" is designed through testing of ideas/changes ■Frequent, ongoing measurement and data driven decision making ■Never ending process (never"done") Elements of QI ■ Hands on experience ■ Managers believe in the value of QI ■ Experts are those on the front line ■ Staff buy-in and staff involvement critical to success ■ Small changes can create big results What QI is NOT ■Quality Assurance (QA) ❑Monitoring and evaluating a service to assure minimum quality standards are met (i.e. audits) ❑Measuring programs and services against protocols or policies & procedures Principles of Improvement 1. Know why you need to improve (AIM) 2. Have feedback mechanism to show improvement (MEASURES) 3. Develop effective changes for improvement (IDEAS) 4. Test changes before implementing (TEST) 5. Know when and how to make changes spread (IMPLEMENT/SUSTAIN) QI Teams ■Members should be knowledgeable of & involved in the process ■Teams typically 3 to 5 members ■Team role assignments ❑Senior Leader (Senior Management— not day to day member but supports process and receives reports) ❑Team Leader ❑Frontline staff ❑"Outside" person ❑QI consultant (if necessary) Team Member Qualities ■Formal or informal influence ■Willing to try new things ■Credibility with peers ■Interested in improvement ■History of success on teams ■Understands the process want to change Role of Senior Leaders in Driving CQI Role of Senior Leaders ■Provide the Vision ■Communicate so all staff and managers understand the vision ■Ensure mission and strategic plan are guided by the vision Role of Senior Leaders ■Become knowledgeable about QI ■Build time in for QI work in daily processes ■Provide resources and training for staff ■Assure managers empower staff to continuously make improvements with small tests of new ideas ■Ask QI teams to brief them regularly on their improvement work ■Reward and recognize successes QI Methodologies ■"Lean" thinking ❑Identify and eliminate wasteful activity ❑Create an efficient and waste-free continuous flow system ■PDSA cycles ❑Plan, Do, Study, Act cycles of rapid improvement ■Kaizen event ❑Intensive multi-day focused improvement efforts by QI team Tom Konsler continued with the PowerPoint at this point: QI Initiative 1 Public Health Quality Improvement 101 February 2010 to Present Orange County Health Department Environmental Health Division Wastewater Treatment Management Program WTMP QI Team ■Carla Julian (Quality Improvement/ Risk Manager) ■Tom Konsler— EH Director ■Albert Mills — EH Program Specialist ■Barbara Hawksworth — EH Technician ■Greg Grimes — EH Program Specialist (retired — Not Pictured) AIM Statement ■By September 1, 2010, we aim to increase the fee collection rate of the Wastewater Treatment Management Program (WTMP) by 20% over the 2009 rate. This is important for: ❑Orange County taxpayer equity for this mandated service; ❑Departmental collection of budgeted revenue; and ❑Orange County cost recovery for mandated inspections. AIM Statement ■We will achieve this by closely examining and improving the current process ❑for client notification of WTMP inspections ❑the time interval between the time of inspection and the mailing of the report and invoice ❑the current format of the report and invoice ❑the payment reminder process. Goals Include ■Decrease the time interval between the time of inspection and mailing the report/invoice to < 3days; ■Increase the number of people paying the WTMP payment within 30 days by 50% ■Reduce the time interval for rebilling of WTMP delinquent payments to 30 days Value Stream Mapping Project Measures ■Number of days from time of inspection to mailing the report/invoice ■Number of WTMP clients that pay within 30 days of inspection & billing ■Number of days from time of initial invoice to mailing of late notice Project Measures Balancing ■Time required to conduct a WTMP inspection with owner in attendance ■Time required to manage billing/payment tracking ■Cost of publishing the improved printed material Key Improvements-graphs Balancing Costs—graph Key Learnings ■Current tracking system cannot capture essential data points for comparing inspection date to billing date to receipt date ■Significant balancing measure of low 3�d quarter inspections ❑ Staff retirement ❑ Intensive effort tracking and implementing QI changes in current system Documentation Improvements - Notification of Inspection 1. Letterhead format with mail merge form 2. Generic postcard notice ❑One size fits all 3. Postcard notice ■Color coded ■System specific Documentation Improvements - Inspection Report 1. Combined detailed report and bill 2. Separated invoice from report 3. Simplified "Report Card" format ❑Summary information only ❑Over-simplified 4. Moderate detail 5. Reversed order of summary info and detail Documentation Improvements - Billing Invoice ■ Attached to report form — often ignored ■ Separated invoice and mailed with report ❑Colored ink for visibility ❑Three step billing 1. Invoice 2. Past Due Notice 3. Final Notice Future Plans ■ Concentrate on completing inspections as a priority over billing until additional staff is available ■ Advocate for resources to do the following: ❑Merge databases ❑Pursue electronic reporting to customers, electronic billing, and credit card payment ❑Pursue collections through new county process QI Initiative 2 Southern Human Services Center Clinic Flow Quality Improvement Project and Kaizen Event Orange County Health Department Quality Improvement Program November 2010 SHSC Clinic Aim Statement ■ What do we want to do� ❑Improve client flow ❑Decrease wasteful activities ❑Reduce wait time for client, clinicians, and staff ■ Why is this important� ❑Improve client satisfaction and staff morale ❑Demonstrate productivity to supervisors and policy-makers ❑Demonstrate value to the community ❑Improve client outcomes ■Issue — nurses walking a lot to pick up charts from medical records "window" ■Plan/Do — put all records in basket inside left side of check-out window ■Study—Assigned MOA okay with trial; nurses like new location ■Act— need to think about possible redesign of front desk area to make more space and find permanent method to put team charts left of check-out window Issue: Door Bell Notification ■ Issue: nurse do not consistently hear notification that client has arrived ■ Plan/Do — use two-way radios: receptionist notify teams when client ready ■ Study— preferred method to door bell, less wasted steps, frees up time to do other things, reduced stress trying to determine if door bell rung ■ Act— implement with temporary family radio system and find similar method with more user-friendly equipment QI Initiative 3 Environmental Health, Planning, Inspections, and Information Technology Central Permitting QI Initiative ■ Orange County permitting process in same building but essentially separate processes ■ Duplicity in application process ■ Permits Plus software application same for all but lacks integration ❑Requires movement of files, printing copies, and multiple duplicative paper files Central Permitting Aim (Goal) Statement ■ What do we want to do? ❑Improve the residential customer's experience with acquiring permits from the county ■ Why is this important? ❑To improve customer service ❑To be good stewards at customers' trust and money ❑To reduce errors and better manage existing resources ❑To be more development-friendly Commissioner Gordon said that the number of inspections went down. She suggested taking a more holistic approach and monitoring this. Tom Konsler said that the answer is to get a full staff, which has recently been done. Another goal is to do some intensive data management. Commissioner Gordon said that they may encounter other times of reduced staff and it is important to have a balanced approach. She said that this is a lesson learned. Commissioner Hemminger asked clarifying questions about inspections, which were answered by Tom Konsler. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 12 and balancing and said that the educational component needs to be balanced with the cost component. Tom Konsler continued with the PowerPoint presentation. Rosemary Summers said that the role of department heads in this process is to eliminate any roadblocks that may occur. In order to do that, the department heads meet periodically to follow up with each other. Commissioner Jacobs asked if all of this could be accomplished with the existing software and Tom Konsler said yes, but it will take some development. 5. Creation of New Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan Dave Stancil said that the staff has been exploring the suggestion by the Board to update the 23-year old Parks and Recreation Master Plan. He made a PowerPoint presentation. A Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan April 12, 2011 Why Is a New Plan Needed? •Existing Plan dates to 1988 —23 years old •Many new parks, changes since 1988 •State grant agency (PARTF) will require a new plan for any grant applications •Good to periodically test assumptions, needs assessment •Critical coordination issues need addressing What Has Been Done Since 1988? •Issue Papers 1996-1999 •Joint Master R&P Plan (1999, adopted 2000) •2001 Parks & Open Space Bond •2030 Comp Plan •Master Plans completed What Has Been Done Since 1988? •Facilities at 7 County Parks •Funded 4 municipal parks now open •Land acquired for 3 future County parks •Future nature preserves and open space areas What Would a New Plan Include? •Background, Vision, Rationale •Goals and Objectives (done, Comp Plan) •Inventory of Facilities, Programs, Services •Needs Assessment/ Public Outreach and Input •Driving Factors •Inter-Relationships with Towns, Schools, Other •Analysis, Action Strategies, Map •Service Standards, Future Costs Examples of Other Plans Other County Parks Plan •Albemarle County, VA (Charlottesville area) •Mecklenburg County, NC •Wake County, NC •Chesterfield County, VA (suburban Richmond) •Cabarrus County, NC •Prince William County, VA (northern Virginia) Key Question 1 •Scope of system/facilities in 2030? •Orange was a latecomer to parks systems (1999) •Most park sites from 1988 Plan now open or acquired/land-banked. •Currently have 7 open parks, 3 land-banked future sites, 2 nature preserve sites. Key Question 1 •Current, acquired or planned future sites: —1 regional park (with Durham County) � district parks —5 community or neighborhood scale parks —2 nature preserves with public access areas —2 facility trails (Southern HSC) or pocket parks Key Question 1 •Projected Orange County Population 2030: 161,000 - 215,000 (currently 133,000) • Between 30-80,000 additional people •What kind of system? —Let the planning process identify options? —Set parameters (focus on larger facilities and not neighborhood-scale, population standards driven?) —Take care of what we have? —Closely linked to Key Question 2 (towns, schools) Key Question 2 •How to Plan with /for/ around Towns? •Is purpose of County system to serve all residents, fill in gaps, or focus on different type? •Two towns have recent plans, one other update in early stages •Some towns have no land for new parks = partnership opportunity? Key Question 2 •Time for closer coordination of town/county plans? •Community Use of School Facilities — —Existing facilities? —Planning for future? —Some counties have this as linchpin of system. Options for a New Plan •Updating the 1988 Plan Difficult— But Using it as a Basis may be Prudent? •Build off County Comprehensive Plan, use PARC to start public engagement, fold in open space plans. •Staff recommends Hybrid (Option 3) —take advantage of current market and skilled available resources. Estimated cost is $22,000 to hire the temporary person. •Is the timing right (product by July 2012)? ChesterField VA Plan (2002) •Priority 1 —Take care of what you have! •Priority 2 — Continue ongoing land acquisition and park development as per needs assessment •Priority 3 — Plan for a linear parks system •Priority 4 — Plan for preservation and compatible use of historic/cultural resources •Priority 5 — Develop relationships (business, other agencies, jurisdictions) to provide services Where Do We Go From Here? •Deep, Thought-provoking Issues •What Should Staff Bring Back Next? •Board feedback on —Is the time right, —Options for pursuing a plan, —Parameters for proceeding (scope, basis), —How to engage towns and school systems —Other? Dave Stancil said that Wake County's plan is a very good model for Orange County. Commissioner Hemminger said that she is very excited about this and she likes hybrid 3. She would like to have some citizen input. She wants to fill in the gaps with what is needed. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Hemminger and said that it is good to get back on top of this, having reached a good pausing point. He likes the hybrid idea also. He said that the non-profits are not mentioned here. He thinks that it is important to add non- profits as an element besides the schools and the towns. He would like to talk about merging the recreation departments of the three governments. He said that he would like to have an understanding about how to regard university students as far as recreational opportunities. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like to see more clarity and usage of the school facilities and how these will be made available for public use. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the 2000 plan and said that this shows how the vision was realized. There was systematic land banking, which became known as the Lands Legacy Program. She agreed that a plan is needed and she likes hybrid option 3, if the County can afford it. She said that there is a history of cooperation between the jurisdictions that can be built upon. Commissioner Foushee offered her support for most of the comments that have been made, especially with Commissioner Gordon's last statement in that the County needs a comprehensive plan that involves coordination with the other governmental entities. She would not want what is brought forward to be stunted by trying to make something happen that will not happen. She is more concerned with filling in the gaps of recreational opportunities for people who do not have easy access. She likes option 3, but as she read it, she thought about the budget process and looking into the resources the County already has. Chair Pelissier said that Elementary School #11 would be a good opportunity to talk about a new facility where something different could be done. Commissioner Jacobs asked what the direction is from the Board. Dave Stancil said that he would create a more concrete recommendation for proceeding with the creation of a comprehensive master plan. A lot of the comments will be incorporated into the plan process. He said that he regrets not mentioning the non-profits because he intends for them to be partners in this process. 6. Land Use and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline and Discussion Planning Director Craig Benedict thanked the Board for the thoughtful comments from the Board in reference to the adoption of the UDO. He said that on the next day after adoption, he was meeting with the Board of County Commissioners' Chair and Vice-Chair on phase 2. He said that this is intended to be a dynamic document and there will be constant changes. He said that only 3% of Orange County's jurisdiction is in an economic development zone. He went through the points on the abstract and the outline on page 3. 1. Context: Orange County's Growth Management Program — an overview of how the land use stage has been set for focused growth and economic development. 2. Land Use and UDO Chanqes: Although we will focus on achievable and `bite-sized' projects, the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan vision with an emphasis on Economic Development will be a dynamic and long-term project. We intend to bring forward an orderly and regular work program. 3. Economic Development: This topic has been the clear focus of BOCC goals and commitment. Suggested Land Use/UDO amendments will further these goals. 4. Planning Elements of Development a. Land Use Location b. Zoning/Design Standards c. Approval Processes 5. Prioritize Focus by Infrastructure availability Next Steps: Staff will work with the Chair/Vice-Chair and Manager to formulate an outline of amendments with the aspects noted on Attachment 1. LAND USE AND UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) AMENDMENT OUTLINE A. AMENDMENT INITIALIZATION 1. Work Program Ideas — Chair/Vice-Chair/Manager to meet with Staff to develop outline — Past and Present Goals 2. Land Use/UDO Amendment Steering Committee (TBD) Meeting with staff to develop a draft work program 3. Board review and approval B. AMENDMENT TOPIC —VARIOUS CATEGORIES 1. Land Use and/or Zoning (Map and/or Text) 2. Development Standards 3. Development Approval Processes 4. Minor Text Changes C. PROCESS - Purpose/Mission - Comprehensive Plan Linkage - Priorities, Goals and Policies D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM 1. Planning Board Ordinance Review 2. Advisory Board Input (which ones) 3. Local Government Invitation (engage early) 4. General Public Outreach, Stakeholders and/or previous Small Area Plan Workgroups a. Mission, Midpoint, Final E. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES 1. Setting of a Quarterly Public Hearing date and remaining on target 2. BOCC updates/checkpoints F. AMENDMENT TOPIC OPTIONS (Steering Committee to help frame) - Positives - Negatives - Options (Continuum of Choices) Commissioner McKee said that he is glad to hear of deadlines in achieving these goals because lack of deadlines can bog this down. He said that he is very concerned with the slide that he saw on the previous Quality Improvement report from the Health Department that involved the Planning process. He would like to see this brought forward often and reduced to a quicker timeframe. Craig Benedict said that the interlocal agreements need to be identified up front with regard to utilities, etc. He agreed with working on the development approval processes also. Commissioner Yuhasz said that it is important to make sure that every proposal is looked at through the lens of whether this will enhance the County's economic development efforts. He thinks that the only thing that the County can do to show seriousness about economic development is to focus UDO efforts on the economic development enhancements. Commissioner Gordon said that the County needs to focus on the EDDs and the nodes and then try to come up with the points that Craig Benedict is talking about, including making it more user-friendly. It seems to her that this is the primary goal. She would recommend trying to get to the final document sooner so that people have time to read it. Commissioner Jacobs said that he has always found Craig Benedict and his staff to be very responsive to the Board's timelines. He said that a lesson he took from Phase 1 is that people were concerned about the conditional zones because they wanted to make sure the County was following the land use plan. He said that having a strong land use plan and commitment to it is very important. Commissioner Yuhasz agreed that the land use plan should guide the economic development efforts, but he also wants to concentrate efforts in those areas the County has identified for economic development. Chair Pelissier said that this is a good outline in that it does not make them have to follow the same process for each update to the UDO. Commissioner Gordon asked clarifying questions, which were answered by Craig Benedict. Craig Benedict said that this is a framework and there will be a line next to each item for a specific amendment area. This will come back to the County Commissioners for review and comment. For each amendment area, there will be a sheet that itemizes the aspects. 7. Follow-up on Electronic/Paperless Aqenda Planninq Todd Jones discussed with the Board the pros and cons of going with an automated agenda process. He referred to the questions on the abstract. Items for Consideration in a paperless Agenda Process 1) What goals does the Board have in mind for a paperless agenda process? There are many potential benefits, including: reduction of paper consumed, easier access to related information, reduction in resources required to manage the agenda creation process. To understand the Board's priorities will help ensure the right solution. 2) What is the anticipated usage rate for Board members and staff for paperless agendas? There are significant benefits to be gained with a wholesale use of paperless agendas by all meeting participants. However, partial adoption, in which staff supports both a paperless process and a legacy paper-based process can significantly erode or even eliminate those benefits with a net increase in staff time to support dual processes. 3) What screen size is deemed optimal for viewing on-line agenda materials? A large screen tends to be optimal for viewing detailed images (such as SAPFO charts, budget spreadsheets and complex GIS maps) and multiple agenda items, while smaller screens such as those on iPads and laptops may be inadequate for detailed images. However, larger screens limit the portability of devices and can create a visual barrier between elected officials and the public. 4) How would viewing hardware be handled? Would Board members use their existing laptops and bring them to each meeting? Would Board members prefer to use small screen touch pad devices, such as iPads? How would Board members envision meetings with other deliberative bodies (Boards of Health, Social Services, Planning; Quarterly Public Hearings; other local governing bodies; e.g., Towns of Chapel Hill, Mebane, Hillsborough)? Would they be compelled to bring laptops or would the county provide these? Providing access devices beyond what is currently available could potentially cost more than the system software and attendant servers. 5) What would the default media be? There are potentially different methods for creating and displaying agenda items, depending on whether paper or digital display is considered. For example, digital delivery allows for direct hyperlinking to historical minutes or video footage of background material. Paper does not. Due to the inherent inefficiencies of authoring two parallel versions of each abstract, it would be important to determine which medium would be considered the default for authoring and delivery. 6) What viewing and annotation features are needed? We assume the Board values easy navigation, with a table of contents available at all times, to allow quick navigation to different agenda items. We assume the Board requires the ability to scroll through items independently of one another. We assume the Board desires a way to insert bookmarks on items to which they want to frequently refer. We assume the Board requires a mechanism for making annotations. 7) How are annotations handled? Would individual Board members' annotations be considered part of the digital record of each meeting? Would a single annotation field for an entire agenda item suffice? Or would Board members prefer to annotate on the documents themselves, the digital equivalent of hard copy markup? Would those annotations only viewable by the individual Commissioner who made them? Or would they become viewable among all Board members? 8) Can Board members' current Internet connections support paperless agendas? Given the need for Board members to access agenda items from home or on the road, will their current connectivity support access large agendas? IT can work with the individual Board members to assess this, but dial-up and AirCard connections will probably prove to be inadequate to support efficient download of these materials. In some Board members' homes, there is a verified lack of available broadband options. There may be other options, such as delivery of "flash" of USB drives. However, this would of course eliminate cost savings of no longer delivering paper agendas. 9) Will Board members endorse the resources needed to support this technology? Information Technologies support will be needed before, during and after meetings in which this technology is used. Further, support will be necessary for the environment in which the public access data. Also, if the chosen solution is an end-to-end agenda creation through distribution and archiving solution, resources will be needed to support the authoring and workflow environment. This could approach a single FTE in required resources. Finally, the Board members themselves will need to arrive early if the chosen solution leverages their laptops, so those machines can be verified as functional. A not to exceed cost limit may help in selecting the best solution. 10) Will hard copies still be available for the public, the Board and staff? This could potentially erode cost savings otherwise realized through print reduction. 11) Will Board members need the ability to print entire agenda package on demand? Existing printer technology provided for board members' home offices are generally not adequate for printing the large volumes associated with our agenda packages. This capability will require upgrades of County provided printers. Commissioner Hemminger said that she could not download the agenda itself, but she downloaded everything else. She said that it would be helpful to have the agenda as a document. Commissioner Yuhasz asked if it would be possible to have a copy of the agenda available where the County Commissioners could annotate individually and would not be a public document. Todd Jones said that he is looking into this, but he does not know about the legalities of it. Commissioner Yuhasz asked John Roberts if it would be a public record if there were notes stored on an individual document. John Roberts said that if the notes are just transient, then no; but if they are substantive, then they would be a public record, especially if the County stores it on a server. Commissioner Gordon asked how the staff wants feedback about this. She would like to know how much it costs now to maintain the system and how much it will cost to go wireless. She asked how the public would access this. Frank Clifton said that Todd Jones will send this document in an email to the County Commissioners for feedback and will address the other issues that are raised. Commissioner Jacobs said that it has been five years since the County Commissioners asked Information Technology to bring a comprehensive wellness plan to the Board of County Commissioners and no one has shown the Board the most updated programs and the capabilities of what the County Commissioners have at their disposal currently. He said that, before anything else is done, this is a key component. Before anything else is done, Information Technology needs to meet with each Board member to find out their tech capability. Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt said that tonight was an experiment. He asked if there was anything that worked really well or did not work at all. Commissioner Hemminger said that the ability to see the slideshow on her computer was good. However, she could not see a whole page at a time on her computer. Commissioner McKee said that on the shorter abstracts it was easier to understand and read. On the long abstracts, it was almost impossible to read it and understand it. Commissioner Foushee said that she is glad they are moving in this direction and the directions given by staff to download information made it much easier. She was glad to not get a 500-page paper packet. Chair Pelissier said that she was very excited about doing this. She had trouble with a longer agenda item also, but she could get used to it. Commissioner Jacobs said that it would be helpful to refer in the body of a long document to a long map early on in a link that would prepare the County Commissioners to download it ahead of time so they will be ready when that item is discussed. 8. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to go into closed session at 10:35:20 PM for the purposes of: "To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney - client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(3); 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); and "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5); and "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). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to reconvene into regular session at 11:25 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board