Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20020318 1 APPROVED 9/3/2002 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION MARCH 18, 2002 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Monday, March 18, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser 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. PROPERTY TAX REFUND Peter and Vicki Childers, who own property at 8718 Morrow Mill Road, appeared at the June 25, 2001 meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners and requested that the Board release their property from taxation by Orange County so that it could be taxed by Alamance County. Vice-Chair Halkiotis and staff subsequently met with Mr. And Mrs. Childers to discuss the information they had gathered which showed that their property is actually physically located inside Alamance County and should be taxed accordingly. A copy of the Vice-Chair's report is incorporated herein by reference. North Carolina General Statute 105-381(b), "Action of Governing Body" provides that"upon receiving a taxpayer's written statement of defense and request for release or refund, the governing body of the taxing unit shall within 90 days after receipt of such a request determine whether the taxpayer has a valid defense to the tax imposed or any part thereof and shall either release or refund that portion of the amount that is determined to be in excess of the correct liability or notify the taxpayer in writing that no release or refund will be made". North Carolina law allows the Board to approve property tax refunds for the current and four previous fiscal years. As noted in one of the attachments to the Vice-Chair's report, the Childers' written request to the Orange County Commissioners is to be released to Alamance County and be refunded property taxes for tax year 2000. The County Manager recommended that the Board adopt a resolution to approve or deny the refund, depending on whether the Board determines that the property in question is located in Orange County or Alamance County. In either case, the Manager recommends that the Board direct staff to engage Alamance County officials in a collaborative effort with the North Carolina Geodetic Survey Office to resolve the Orange-Alamance boundary, as outlined in the background materials included with the Vice-Chair's January 15, 2002 report. Rod Visser said that in 1996, Orange County and Alamance County worked for a short while to try to resolve the boundary line but nothing was resolved. Chair Jacobs thanked Commissioner Halkiotis for all the work he did in resolving this dispute and also the staff for putting together all the information. Land Records Manager Roscoe Reeve showed on a map the Childers' property. On the left is his lot highlighted in red and the boundary that was transferred into the GIS system. He showed the traditional boundary on the Alamance County maps which was a hodgepodge of maps. Further east is 2 the USGS line that was done on a statewide basis. The Childers' lot is in a subdivision called Spring Farm. The first phase included the Childers' lot which is newer than 1995. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5 and the statement"in the absence of an agreement among the counties and a citizen, the citizen has the right to pay taxes in the county where the citizen's property is cited and receive government services in the county where the citizen resides." Geoffrey Gledhill said that this sentence comes from something that is unrelated to the Childers taxes and has to do with the agreement between Orange County and Chatham County. It is talking about citizens receiving services where they live and pay taxes where they own property. There is no direct relationship between where you get services and where you pay taxes. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon on how a Commissioner is suppose to solve this, John Link said that if the County Commissioners make a determination that the property is in Alamance and a court decision finds that action to be wrong then there will be liability. He is not supporting either way. He feels it is important for the County Commissioners to make a judgment on this one case which is unique and different from other cases. Geoffrey Gledhill made reference to personal liability for releasing tax money which should not be released. If you agree to release and refund the Childers tax money for the years in question and someone else complained and sued you for the money you agreed to release or refund, that person would have to prove that the County Commissioners were wrong in determining that the Childers property is not located in Orange County. They would have the burden of overcoming all the evidence. It would be a low risk case. Every time you make a release or refund this is the consequence. The basis for releasing or refunding is that it is an illegal tax and Orange County has no legal right to tax property which is not in Orange County. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Geoffrey Gledhill said that the County Commissioners have the responsibility for resolving matters related to the location of the Countyline. Until some court tells us otherwise the green line on the map is the Countyline. Chair Jacobs made reference to page four (4) of Commissioner Halkiotis' memo where Commissioner Halkiotis makes a recommendation to get together with Alamance County and determine where the line is. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this is not an unusual situation to have an issue with the boundary line. When we tried to resolve this line with Alamance County, it got political. We had a nice meal, a nice discussion and then it fell apart. It may have worked if staff pursued it. He would like for this dispute to be discussed with the Managers and staffs and not in the public forum. He feels it does not need to be a repeat of the same process that has been going on for years. He feels it should not be drawn out over the summer and suggested 60 days to resolve this issue. If it can't be resolved, then it can be brought back to the County Commissioners. He made reference to the last page of his memo and noted that staff have identified 267 parcels that could be affected, if for example, the boundary line resulting from this process generally resembled the USGS line. One hundred thirty five (135) of those parcels are currently taxed by Orange County with an assessed value of almost$19 million and resulting General Fund revenue (based on the FY 2001-02 tax rate of 80.5 cents) of roughly$153,000. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer this matter to the County Managers and staffs of Orange County and Alamance County to resolve this issue within 60 days. If it cannot be resolved within 60 days, it is to be brought back to the County Commissioners for further discussion and direction. VOTE: UNANIMOUS John Link said that when he approaches the Alamance County Manager it will be to also express the County's interest in asking the State to facilitate resolving the county boundary using a formal process made available to counties through the North Carolina Geodetic Survey Office. Commissioner Gordon noted that wherever the line is drawn, that those children on the Alamance County side will go to the Alamance County schools and those on the Orange County side will go to Orange County schools. 3 2. CLASSIFICATION AND PAY STUDY UPDATE During the 2001-2002 budget process, the Board of Commissioners authorized funding for a Classification and Pay Study of the 744 County positions and approved a contract with Condrey and Associates to conduct the study. The study plan provides for the results to be ready for the Board's consideration as part of the budget process for 2002-03. Tonight, Dr. Steve Condrey will update the Board on the study to date and discuss the preliminary findings, recommendations and general cost estimates. After this report, Personnel Director Elaine Holmes will discuss possible scenarios on phase in of the study and associated costs. Dr. Cordrey made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that the main purpose of this study was to ensure that Orange County maintains a competitive, equitable classification and pay system. This would include reviewing the classification of each position, reassessing internal salary relationships and establishing or re-establishing the County's position in the labor market in relation to other employers. He summarized the process he followed and the status of each step. After tonight, the study results and class descriptions will be reviewed with departments and employees and in May the final Classification and Pay Study results will be presented to the County Commissioners. He noted that it has been 12 years since the County did a pay study. Dr. Cordrey presented the proposed salary scale which has 37 grades, 5% between each grade and 20 steps which are 2-1/2% apart. He explained how the implementation would work. He said that it is a nice balance to show the employees that you appreciate their service and also appreciate them being good stewards of the taxpayers money. Elaine Holmes will be presenting some phased in options showing that the pay plan can be phased in 2 or 2-1/2 years. Dr. Condrey said that this pay plan accomplishes the goals set by the Board of Commissioners as stated below: ❖ Equitable salary relationships ❖ More competitive in the labor market ❖ Improves entry-level rates ❖ A capital investment in the County's workforce Personnel Director Elaine Holmes presented some scenarios for a phased implementation. She said that the County staff recognizes the costs involved and looked at possible ways of phasing in the cost over three years. The plan provides for Classification and Pay implementation funding in lieu of COLA and In-Range Salary increases for 2002-03 and 2003-04. In the first year, the plan implementation would be delayed until January 6, 2003 to diminish first year fiscal impact. This would achieve full implementation by October 2003. The costs to fully implement the Classification and Pay Study effective July 1, 2002 would be $2,510,000. This would be $980,000 for classification and step changes and $1,530,000 for equity increases based on service as of July 1, 2002. Elaine Holmes presented a chart which showed the annual cost if the plan was phased in over three years. The costs for 2002-03 would be $928,000. The costs for 2003-04 would be $1,465,000 and for 2004-05, $475,000. In answer to a question from Commissioner Brown Dr. Condrey said that the job titles reflect what the person is doing. Elaine Holmes said that there is some realignment of positions because duties have changed over the years. All County positions have been included in the study. Commissioner Brown asked if the living wage was considered and Elaine Holmes said that she would not have the figures to upgrade the living wage which is now$9.11 until next month. Regarding the housing wage, the salary required for rent in the Raleigh-Durham Chapel Hill area would be $31,800. She will provide this data at a later time. Commissioner Brown asked for information on what the study has done in each department and also below/above $50,000. In answer to a question from Commissioner Halkiotis, Elaine Holmes said that grade 6 would be the first one they would use which is close to the lowest salary paid at the present time. The minimum we pay our employees right now is $10.25 per hour. Commissioner Halkiotis said that the problem with the other scale was that the yearly adjustments were so small, amounting to maybe $17.00 a week. He feels this is a much stronger salary scale. 4 In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about the classification plan, Dr. Cordrey said that they evaluated all positions and came up with a new ranking of positions in the County. He collects data from the labor market and then determines what it would cost to put the positions on the salary scale. The new salary scale is higher than the old salary scale. Elaine Holmes said that the requirements for certain positions have changed and this has been considered which impacts how they relate to other positions. Commissioner Gordon asked that the term "equity" be changed to something else and Cordrey said that he would change this term. If the County does not do the equity piece, then he would recommend that the County not do any part of the study because it would cause disharmony among employees because you would not be taking care of the employees who have been here a number of years. Mr. Cordrey said that there were not any glaring differences in the study. He will have a full written report on the pay study in May. John Link commended Steve Cordrey, Personnel Analyst Elgin Lane, Elaine Holmes and staff. He said that every single employee completed the forms necessary for this report. He feels we are capturing in this study what people are really doing. Commissioner Brown asked if he took into consideration all the benefits the employees receive and Dr. Cordrey said that he did some review of the benefits but focused on the salary. There will be a summary of what they collected on benefits in the final report. Mr. Condrey said that this would give the County a great pay structure on which the County can then evaluate the benefits. Chair Jacobs asked if updating the living wage will affect this salary scale. Elaine Holmes said that the consumer price index went up 1.6% so she does not anticipate that this salary scale will be changed because of the living wage. Chair Jacobs said that he is interested in seeing how we compare to the housing wage. He questioned if there are other positions that require that you reside in close proximity to where you work. He made reference to the implementation plan and asked if parts one and three could be done together and how much that would cost compared with item two. The employees who have been with the County more than seven years would receive a step increase in phase 1 and phase 2. John Link said that he has told the Personnel Department to keep the increase to$900,000 or less each year. Chair Jacobs said that he would like to see more alternatives and a breakdown of implementing the phases of employment. It will need to be part of a mix of being more conservative in everything we do. Commissioner Gordon said that she does not expect next year to be better than this year, so alternatives that would give us a choice in what we may do would be helpful. Also, she would like to have this plan compared to the present plan and see other alternatives for phasing in this plan. In answer to a question from Commissioner Gordon about the regions chosen for comparison, Elaine Holmes said that regions were chosen which have similar labor market pressures. Dr. Cordrey noted that if the private sector were used for comparisons, the amounts would be higher. Commissioner Halkiotis asked to take the lowest paid positions and compare the employment in the County with the two school systems, the University and Blue Cross-Blue Shield. He asked for this information. He would like to know how the County competes with the two school systems, the University and Blue Cross-Blue Shield. In answer to a question from Chair Jacobs about what the County has done to help their employees advance, Elaine Holmes said that they are developing the career ladders in EMS and the Sheriff's Dept. Elaine Holmes said that the next step is to have the departments share with their employees the results of the pay study and receive their comments and to bring back to the County Commissioners a more detailed report. They expect to do this during the next two months. John Link asked that each County Commissioners be provided with a sampling of what some of the employees have submitted as part of this process and to share with the County Commissioners what staff has shared with the department heads. 5 3. 2002-2012 COUNTY INVESTMENT PLAN CIP PRESENTATION John Link said that each year, the County Manager and staff update the County's ten-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The CIP is a multi-year plan that addresses County and school needs for long-lived assets. Items typically included in the CIP are construction, refurbishment, or purchases of buildings; land acquisition or improvement; and major equipment and vehicle acquisition and financing. This process offers an opportunity to review long-term capital needs and enables timely acquisition and phased financing of major assets. The 2002-2012 CIP is more comprehensive than those prepared in recent years. It incorporates not only projects to be funded fully or in part from the $75 million in bonds approved by voters in November 2001 but also includes $37.7 million to be funded over the next five years through alternative financing mechanisms. Budget Director Donna Dean made this PowerPoint presentation. Donna Dean summarized the things that the County has been able to do in the last three years. These included three new schools, preservation of land resources and affordable housing opportunities. She said that the recommended CIP offers a progressive plan and a chance for the County to partner with Towns and other community agencies. The document has a new look. The Board has expressed a desire for the County's capital plan to contain significantly more detail than in the past. Each of the individual project pages contain detailed narrative and financial information. One of the major areas we are looking at for next year is affordable housing. Donna Dean suggested that the public hearing on the CIP be on April 2 along with a public hearing on the Durham Tech project. Commissioner Brown asked for information on the County's responsibility for Orange Enterprises. John Link said that the County provides basic maintenance for the building and some funding for their operation each year. They are a non-profit agency with which we have a direct relationship. We do help finance their space needs. A large portion of their financial base goes through mental health. Commissioner Halkiotis said that Orange Enterprises provides a wonderful service for both school systems. Also included in the CIP are the highest priority projects as presented in the space study. Donna Dean summarized these projects as listed below: ❖ $6 million for Construction of new Justice Facility in fiscal year 2004-05 ❖ $4 million matching funds for Durham Technical Community College Satellite Campus ❖ $500,000 for addition to Orange Enterprises ❖ $8 million for Government Services Center Addition ❖ $500,000 for renovations to Planning and Agriculture Building and Farmers Market ❖ $2.6 million for Animal Shelter/Animal Control Facility ❖ Short-term funding for the Southern Human Services Center to convert the existing residence to a conference center and locate a generator on site ❖ Long-term $3 million to expand the current Southern Human Services Center beginning in fiscal year 2009-2010 ❖ $5.3 million in the last five years of the plan to construct building addition for Whiffed Human Services ❖ $150,000 for renovations to Court Street Annex ❖ $11.65 million in bond funds for Parks, Recreation and Open Space ❖ $3.075 million each for two Senior Centers Commissioner Halkiotis asked when we are suppose to vacate the current animal shelter and John Link said that the lease runs out in December, 2006. Chair Jacobs asked what we are paying for rent at Carr Mill Mall and also what we are paying at the Galaria. Pam Jones will provide this information. Donna Dean made reference to the last page of the document which is a multi-colored sheet. She said that one of the new ideas introduced in the plan is the partnership with the Towns. The CIP provides County bond funds of$8.35 million for County/Town partnerships. The projects are listed in the document. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 169 and the Aquatic Center and suggested that this was a joint request from Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The County should give them the credit and responsibility 6 for asking for it. Carrboro is saying that this project is a high priority. He wants to see how Carrboro wants to fit into the picture. Chair Jacobs said that when he met with Chatham County, he asked them about participating financially in the Southern park project. Chatham took the plan and said that they would get back with comments soon so as to not delay construction. Commissioner Brown asked about the soccer superfund and how that would work. John Link said that as we look at the parks we will be developing we would keep in mind that there is money for soccer fields. Also when they work with both school systems we will look at the feasibility of adding soccer fields at school facilities. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 182 and the SportsPlex. She noted that the total cost is 10.9 million. John Link said that the Board might want to stop their contribution after the tenth year. He asked to leave this in for several years. The Board can zero it out or continue paying $400,000. The $400,000 would take us out to 2005. Rod Visser said that the $10.9 million number is too high. He will check this figure and correct it. The Board agreed that a policy decision needs to be made regarding the SportsPlex. Donna Dean made reference to the senior centers (page 9) and said that she has reviewed the projects in the CIP to see if funds can be reallocated and feels that there are funds that can be used for planning these senior centers. Chair Jacobs asked for a timeline showing when a decision needs to be made on a site. The funding sources for this proposed CIP are as follows: ❖ Alternative Financing 16% ❖ Bonds 36% ❖ Pay-As-You-Go 48% Donna Dean said that there are factors to consider in looking at the need for school facilities. These include the following: ❖ Student Membership ✓ Current student population ✓ Future projections which need additional analysis ❖ Mandated state initiatives to provide learning opportunities for pre-K children John Link made reference to the High School planning considerations. The Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools have articulated the need for additional high school space. The recommendation from the Capital Needs Task Force was to recommend money for planning for a new high school in the $85 million bond packet. As the Board of County Commissioners responded to the report, they decided on a $75 million bond issue, which did not include any monies for additional high school space. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools have been talking about a 750 student High School and in the CIP that Neil Petersen has proposed to his board and that has been recommended in this report is for$8.5 million to come from impact fee and alternative funding. He thinks it would be a good idea for the County Commissioners and school board to look at how they have approached new high school space in the past. Orange County financed their new High School from impact fees and alternative funding and Orange County schools have been strapped by this funding not leaving much for other projects. He recommends that this be an item for discussion when the County Commissioners meet with the two school boards next Monday. The focus for the proposed work group would be as listed below: ♦ Need for and timing for additional space ♦ Review and clarify latest transmittals from CHCCS ♦ Options to pay for new space ♦ Location and size ♦ Long-term educational benefits ♦ Remaining capacity at existing high schools ♦ Level of service standards for measuring overcrowded situations ♦ Appropriate revisions to adopted school construction standards John Link pointed out that if a small high school is built and another one is needed, a bond issue would be needed in 2006 to fund it. Commissioner Gordon made reference to Cedar Ridge High School funding and asked where the pay-as-you-go money comes in and Ken Chavious said that it would be the debt service of$1.9 million each year. She asked what process was gone through when Cedar Ridge was built and John Link said that there was no committee. The Orange County system made the argument that their present High School was overcrowded and proceeded from there. He said that there is additional information from both high schools on their high school projects. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to the funding for Cedar Ridge and said that he is not sure he would recommend this type of funding for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools because it leaves little money to take care of situations that may come up. Commissioner Brown asked for information on what the programming would be for a 750 student High School. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to page 4 and asked if anyone is tracking the impact fee collections to see how close they are to projections. He asked for these figures for Monday evening. Commissioner Gordon asked if the questions about the Orange County central office space have been answered and Chair Jacobs said not yet. 4. ADJOURNMENT With no further items for the Board to consider, a motion was made by Commissioner Brown seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The next scheduled meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Chair Barry Jacobs Beverly A. Blythe, CMC