Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20030226APPROVED 4/15/2003 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 26, 2003 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on February 26, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen H. Halkiotis COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr. and Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (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. Chair Brown called the meeting to order and said that Commissioner Halkiotis was ill and therefore unable to attend the meeting. 1. Schaollssues Chair Brown asked if any school board members were in attendance and there were. They included Gloria Foley, Vice- Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education. John Link suggested that the Board might want to determine which topics to focus on. He made reference to CHCCS New Facilities -Possible Next Steps and said that there are copies of the official correspondence between the Board of Education and the County Commissioners going back to a memo dated October 5th where the school board articulates by resolution the number of criteria by which they would propose to site and pursue a new high school. Mast recently, there was correspondence from Commissioner Gordan as it relates to the retreat that the school board had recently. There is a letter from the Chair, Valerie Foushee, which sustains what Commissioner Cordon's report included. He said that the Board could look at its perception or understanding of where the school board is on siting and funding a new high school. John Link suggested other topics of discussion such as next steps to pursuing collaboration using the Institute of Government, next steps with the School Facilities Task Force, etc. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to talk about the new facilities possible next steps and also any implications for the Schools Adequate Public Facilities process. Commissioner Carey agreed with Commissioner Gordon and said that he wanted to know what is in the letters since he had not had a chance to read them. Chair Brown mentioned the letter from Carrboro's Mayor Nelson. She said that staff has already begun to develop a response to this letter. Chair Brown said that the process of siting a new high school started about 13 months ago and the piece that the Board did not see was the presentation made to the CHCCS board about student projections. This presentation included a map that projected the number of students that would be in the undefined area south of Franklin Street. She said that this was the defining piece of information that started the high school search 13 months ago. She never saw that information and would like to see the presentation that was made. She said that all that the Board saw was a small map with no written material. In December the Board did receive a large map but still no written material. She would like to pick a time with the school system to discuss this. New Facilities Next Steps: Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners was meeting with the school boards on April 14th, and the above-mentioned presentation could be made then. Vice Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School Board Gloria Foley asked about the framework of the map and what the Board is looking for. Chair Brawn said that they would like to see whatever the presentation was that the school board received. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Superintendent Neil Pedersen made reference to the map in question and said that 1/3 of the projected high school students live south of Rt. 54. Chair Brown said that what she picked up at the council meeting in Chapel Hill was that there would be 1,500 high school students in this vicinity by 2005. Superintendent Pedersen said that the map plots students in grades 1-5 who would be starting high school in 2005- 2006. Chair Brown would like to see where all the other students would be also in the presentation. This presentation from the CHCCS is tentatively set far April 14th Collaboration: Chair Brown made reference to the collaboration issue and said that there have been successful meetings and possibilities -one of them being the meeting with Dr. Phillip Boyle from the Institute of Government. She asked if the school board desired to proceed with this. Gloria Foley said yes, and they wished to proceed with the collaboration. She asked if the school board had voted on working with Phil Boyle from the Institute of Government an school collaboration and working with the Board of County Commissioners. Gloria Foley said yes. They have reviewed the MUU that was compiled from this committee. Chair Brown said that it was $20,000 far a facilitator from the Institute of Government. Commissioner Carey said that he supported the collaboration efforts last year and now he has had a change of heart with paying $20,000 to the I~G to facilitate two school boards to get together and talk about collaboration. He thinks this could be done without paying a facilitator. He has already proposed a merger and he thinks the two school boards should be able to do this without paying $20,000 because the County has other pressing needs. He arrived at this conclusion in the last few months. If the Board wants to da it, that is okay but he can no longer support spending $20,000 to get the school boards together to talk when they aught to be talking with each other voluntarily about callabaratian. Commissioner Jacobs said that he agrees with Commissioner Carey an what ought to be but we da not know if the systems will merge. He said that one of the things that came out of the meetings was that we need to have a better sense of feeling comfortable with one anather's values, goals, and aspirations. He thinks this process would be important regardless of merger. He said that the Board has had to take the lead and if it requires an artificial stimulus then it is money well spent. Commissioner Carey said that he once supported it but no longer does. Commissioner Gordon said that there are two parts to this -collaboration with two school boards and who is involved and whether there should be a professional facilitator. She said that it seems worthwhile to her to get the Commissioners involved with this collaboration. She would not spend the money unless it was necessary and this is. Chair Brown said that she has always thought it was a worthwhile effort but she is not clear on what the goals are. Commissioner Carey agreed with Commissioner Gordon that collaboration needs to occur and he supports it in concept only. This item will be an an agenda in the future. Chair Brown made reference to siting a new facility and the high school. She said that last January it was clearly stated by the school board that they would make the search and when a site was found, then it would come to the Board of County Commissioners with a price. The price is included in the $27.8 million dollars. This has been clarified in two letters -one from Commissioner Jacobs in November and then the one from her three days ago. She asked far any discussion about this. Commissioner Gordon said that her understanding in talking with the Budget Director Donna Dean is that they looked through the budget and identified the sources of funding for new space and it was $27.8 million. This funding is identified in the budget in the CIP. The money still has to be formally transferred from the elementary school and it is not finalized. Also, the funding available for the high school and for Elementary School #10 needs to be finalized. Another issue is what the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City School system is allowed to do and the Board of County Commissioners has to approve the price they want to spend. The money for high school construction standards far a 1,000-student high school is from $24,695,000 to $29,920,000. Gloria Foley said that they are directing the Superintendent to develop a detailed plan and they will look at the CIP. They are hoping to exhaust all possibilities for funding the new high school. She said that a final package would be delivered. Chair Brown said that she is trying to think of how a more successful siting process could take place. One of the issues to be looked at is the land use planning and the adapted small area plans far bath the southern part of Chapel Hill and the Northern Small Area Plan far Carrbara and what those plans say. She worked on both of these plans and basically they are long-range plans for the urbanization of bath of these areas. The urbanization relies on public transportation and lesson cars. UNC has adapted a policy for parking and it is working. She suggested using this as a boilerplate for a successful design of a school. She asked about the status of the Rock Haven site because a development proposal has already been submitted to the Town of Carrboro. Gloria Foley said that this needs to be discussed more. Eubanks Road is much more rural than other properties. Chair Brown said that it appears rural, but it is the designated area for an urbanized plan. She said that there is discussion about eminent domain. Chair Brawn asked County Attorney Geoff Gledhill about eminent domain. Geoff Gledhill said that the Board of Education has eminent domain power and can condemn property for a school site ar expansion of an existing school site. The only complication that arises with the school board using this power is the requirement in North Carolina law that the County Commissioners approve the amount that is spent for the school. The problem is that eminent domain is an uncertain process and you do not know until you are finished what it is going to cast far the site. There is no way that the Board of County Commissioners could approve up front the amount to be spent with an eminent domain process. Commissioner Gordon asked if the County could work with the school board staff ar attorney on this. She said that she would not like to broadcast what the County was willing to pay. Geoff Gledhill said that a jury would most likely decide how much the Board of Education would have to pay. Discussion ensued about the eminent domain issue. Commissioner Jacobs expressed his sympathy to the school board and staff because this is a difficult process. The sites are becoming more difficult to find. He said that the way he understands the process, the highest priority is to have a high school by a certain time and the second highest priority is to have a high school in a certain area. We have talked repeatedly about an urban design and an architect who is hired specifically far their expertise in designing urban high schools. His concern is that we are spending money beyond what we can da for an unsustainable model. He will not be sympathetic to spending more money on that model. We are a growing community and he would rather spend money on public transportation than on parking. He said that he would do everything he could to support the most frugal land use model and financial model. Commissioner Carey said that he has been hearing that the priorities are different than Commissioner Jacobs stated above. He has been hearing from the school board and the citizens that the priorities are just the opposite. He wants to be clear on the message the Board is sending to the school board about funding. He wants to see the documentation for justification, but he is willing to accept the school board's judgement that a school is needed in the southern part of the district. He agrees that frugality is important, but he can approve spending mare than $25 million. Commissioner Jacobs said that if the southern part of the district is a high priority but the school board is willing to abandon that to build an Eubanks Road rather than abandon the sprawl model. He said that it is almost as if wanting to have everything has forced the process to go slower. He said that if we are going to be sa wedded to the sprawl model that we have to go build it on Eubanks Road we have defeated the highest priority, which is the southern part of the district. This is why he is perplexed. Chair Brown said that the sprawl model could not fit on the Eubanks Road site. In her conversations with both mayors, they did not see a problem with expanding the bus service. Chair Brown made reference to the High School Planning Task Force and said that this could be reestablished to work on the urbanization and land planning issues. Commissioner Gordon said that the school board is charged with making these decisions and they are calling this a comprehensive high school. She said that it seems that the ball is in the school board's court to come back with a proposal and answers to our questions. Chair Brown said that her paint is still that the Chair and Vice Chair can work with the High School Planning Task Force to try and deal with these issues as soon as possible. Gloria Foley said that they would like to have a 1,000-student high school in one place and a 500-student high school in another and not a 2,000-student high school. The question they still have is whether urban schools and urban services would be able to support the students. Chair Brown made reference to SAPFO and Mayor Nelson's letter and said that one of the issues that had not been anticipated was the length of time it takes school systems to site the needed facilities. This could put the County in a position of being out of compliance with adequate public facilities. She asked Planning Director Craig Benedict to explain what happened at Carrboro's meeting. Craig Benedict said that the concerns were mainly with the CIP, mainly for the high school that showed that there would be two years of an over-capacity situation. Carrboro wants the Board to clarify the capital financing piece. John Link said that the ten-year CIP usually has the funding for the first 5-6 years in place. The question is how the County can guarantee that it will carry forward the commitment to fund priority projects. His response has been and still is that aver the last 15 years the County Commissioners, the school boards, and the citizens have successfully passed four referenda, and using other sources of revenue, the County has financed $277 million in capital projects for schools. He thinks that the past experience has demonstrated the County's ability and commitment to fund projects in the future. He said that we could not possibly have the total funding available far something ten years from now. Chair Brown read from the letter from Mayor Nelson, as follows: "Two weeks ago the school system acknowledged that the planned new high school would not be open on schedule. Our understanding is that without this school opening on time, the high school sector will be over capacity by 86 students for 2005 and 230 students in 2005-2006." She gets confused by all of these numbers. She would like to pin down these numbers. Commissioner Gordon would like to get the staff (Manager, ERCQ, Purchasing, etc.} and the attorney and make them available to consult with the school system as they move forward in this process. John Link has already offered this to Superintendent Pedersen. Commissioner Jacobs said that some of the County Commissioners were unclear about how space is used at the high schools and space that is set aside for childcare and whether this could be set aside as classroom space. He asked for an explanation sometime in the near future and whether or not they could identify room for 86 high school students sa that we would not be over capacity in 2004-2005. Commissioner Carey said that he supports the staff being available to the school system, but Carrbora has raised some issues that he does not think that we are going to be able to address. He thinks that Carrbora is looking for something mare than our willingness to say that we have done it in the past and will do it in the future. John Link said that staff would come up with a letter to try and respond to the questions from Carrboro. Chair Brawn does not want the SAPFC? to fall apart because of Carrboro's lack of confidence. She thinks there are a lot of ways to mitigate 230 students and not be in a moratorium in a couple of years. Commissioner Jacobs said that there is an Assembly of Governments meeting on April 29th and he suggested that there be a presentation to all municipal boards on haw our CIP works and how we would not have entered into SAPFC~ if we did not understand that we were responsible for providing educational facilities in a timely manner. He would like to have some kind of formal response from Hillsborough by this time. Chair Brown asked Gloria Foley what would be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and at what time. Gloria Foley said that they would have a presentation ready by April with an identified site of the new high school. This would include the site and financial information. Chair Brown asked if there was any room for the High School Planning Task Farce. Gloria Foley said that they have already had the discussions regarding identifying sites unless there are other issues. Chair Brown said that there are a lot of other issues with the urban school design, etc. Gloria Foley said that they were going to try to keep to the schedule of opening in 2006-2007. Chair Brown said that she does not want to gear up a High School Planning Task Force if it is not what the school board is trying to achieve. Gloria Foley said that it might be a good idea for the school staff to talk about the legal issues and the planning issues but let the school board pursue which is the best site. Chair Brawn said that she would postpone the High Schaal Planning Task Force unless she hears any different. She said that if the choice is to go to CHETPAC, then this is another planning issue that would have to be discussed. She said that she saw the architect put a high school down on the CHETPAC site. She said that a high school would not work at this site. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the Board Chair talk with the Chair of the school board. He asked Gloria Foley that a public comment component be included that involves the County Commissioners. Chair Brown clarified that there is no involvement of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and the High School Planning Task Farce with the next steps. Gloria Foley said that they do want to do the collaboration and continue the School Facilities Task Farce. Superintendent Pedersen said that they are following the high school standards that were approved. Chair Brown said that those standards are wonderful, but there is the reality of all the land planning issues and not having enough room to put all these things in. She encouraged the school board to leave this model behind and work with the County Commissioners in developing a good model that will fit within the urban services transition area. Gloria Foley said that maybe this discussion can come after the package is delivered. 2. Solid Waste Advisory Board Report on Solid Waste Alternative Financing Chair Brawn asked Salid Waste Director Gayle Wilson and Mr. Jan Sassman, Chair of the Solid Waste Authority Board (SWAB}, to introduce other members of the group. Jan Sassman introduced selected member of the SWAB. Jan Sassman made a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation was a summary of the extensive report that was provided to the County Commissioners earlier this week. In June 1997, the Solid Waste Management Plan was adopted, which established a commitment by the County to reduce waste. The key feature of the plan was a 61 °~ waste reduction goal by the year 2006. In 2001-2002, the County was at 40.1 % reduction and was the first county in the State to achieve at least a 40% reduction in solid waste. It is highly unlikely the County will reach the 61 % reduction goal by continuing current courses. This goal will require aggressive expansion of the present waste reduction and recycling activities. The role of the SWAB is to provide advice to the County Manager for use in developing the annual budget for the solid waste system. The SWAB reviewed the Solid Waste Management Plan of 1997 and enterprise activities and the needs to meet the plan goals. There were two conclusions. First of all, the solid waste enterprise is at a crucial financial crossroads. Current income sources are insufficient to maintain current and projected solid waste operations. Secondly, any assessment of the solid waste operations should be in the context of an integrated system using multiple means and strategies to deal with the solid waste material generated by the citizens of Orange County. The County needs alternative long-term financing for solid waste because over 90% of departmental operating funds still come from tipping fees. These fees are directly proportionate to the amount of waste disposed. The costs far recycling and waste reduction are increasing. Also, there is less revenue and increased costs for disposal of MSW and C&D in the County landfill. He explained the solid waste paradox. Since fees are generated from the landfill, as you try to reduce the amount of material, you reduce the money that can be used to support the recycling. The goal is to get out of this catch 22 situation. The guiding principles of the SWAB include: endorsement of the Solid Waste Management Plan; non-profits need to pay their fair share of disposal operations; dedicated restricted reserve funds; maintain a healthy fund balance; the solid waste system should be viewed as an integrated system; fees should be averaged annually to avoid spikes; and owners of rental property should be responsible for fees instead of occupants. The general recommendations of the SWAB are that additional funding is needed for the 2003-2004 fiscal year operation and any long-term option will take one to two years to fully implement, so some short-term mechanism is needed. The SWAB recommends that the County fund the budgetary shortfall by means of interim taxing or fee measures. There are extensive political implications in short-term financing and they were not able to reach an agreement on a specific mechanism without guidance from the Board of County Commissioners. Same of the short-term mechanisms that were considered include ashort-term property tax increase, creation of special solid waste tax districts, and development of availability fees. Long-term mechanisms considered by the SWAB include availability fees, property tax, solid waste district tax, a blend of taxes and availability fees, and a comprehensive prepaid solid waste availability or services fee {recommended option). Availability Fees -each user class is charged far services available to that user class. Each user class pays a rate that would capture program costs not covered by tipping fees and other revenue sources. Property Tax -all of the solid waste deficit would be funded by a single addition to the property tax that would be assessed at a uniform rate to all property owners, regardless of the services they are provided. Solid Waste District Tax -County and all participating municipalities would agree to establish special solid waste taxing districts based on the level of service received. Municipal approval would be required. Blend of Property Tax and Availability Fees -this would provide sufficient financing for all programs using taxes for some programs and fees for other services that are not available to all users. Comprehensive Prepaid Services Fee {recommended option) -this fee would cover all casts of the Solid Waste Management Department's operations and it would be paid by all Orange County residences, businesses, and institutions. Operations exclude hauling of solid waste by individual governments or private haulers. This prepaid fee would eliminate landfill or transfer station tipping fees as well as charges for other solid waste services to those who prepay the annual fee. He went through the definitions of the terms. The Comprehensive Prepaid Solid Waste Services Fee covers the MSW lined landfill operations {excluding C&D and vegetative waste), recycling services, administrative and planning services, restricted equipment and landfill closure reserves, implementation of the Orange County Solid Waste Management Plan, and other solid waste services provided by the County {exclusive of solid waste hauling). Chair Brown asked if there was any information about how no tipping fee would affect the municipal budgets. This information will be provided. It was answered that there would be a significant reduction in the municipal budgets. Jeff Hughes took aver the presentation at this paint. He said that they looked at multi-year cash flaws, capital planning, and tested new revenue scenarios. The model financial planning framework includes three pots of money. When the revenue comes in, it is split three ways. The projected shortfall for this year (2002-2003} in the annual budget if reserves are funded is approximately $1.59 million. He summarized the fee scenarios, which were outlined in the presentation (slides 37-38}. In answer to a question from John Link, Jeff Hughes said that in mast cases, these fees are incorporated into the tax bill. Commissioner Carey said that the SWAB plan includes attaching the fee to the landowner rather than the occupant of rental property, and the behavior of the occupant is what generates the stream. He asked how this would work to provide compliance with waste reduction when it is attached to the owner rather than the occupant that is generating the waste stream. Jan Sassman said that it would be no different than it is now because the owner pays in the tax bill to the city and it is done by education and it makes recycling readily available. Commissioner Carey asked how we would prevent our citizens from subsidizing other people from other counties when the fee is attached to the landowner and the tipping fee is eliminated and private haulers bring waste to the landfill. Jan Sassman said that we would not allow them to bring materials to the County's facility ar they would have to pay. If they brought waste from County generators, they would not have to pay a tipping fee. This would require some policing. Commissioner Carey asked about not-for-profit owners being included and if this included tax exempt owners like educational institutions. Jan Sassman said that they envision it to be this way. He said that it was up to the other local governments to decide if they should pay the fee. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the landfill closure fund of $2.5 million and the $360,000 a year that would be set aside. He asked if other jurisdictions had used a bond to do that. Jan Sassman said that one of the strong feelings of the SWAB was that those of us who are using the landfill now are responsible for paying for the closure. It seemed that putting aside the money now was a mare prudent way of fulfilling the requirement of closing the landfill. Commissioner Jacobs asked how the University figures into this. Jan Sassman said that the SWAB felt that it would probably be best to have a separate negotiation with UNC to assure that tip fees are received from them. Commissioner Jacobs would like to get some suggestions on what the negotiating position with UNC would be. Commissioner Jacobs said that it appears that there is no way to anticipate in this scenario any possible sharing of facilities with any other jurisdiction. He asked for more information on this possibility. Commissioner Gordon does not understand why the SWAB would want to eliminate the tipping fee and why it could not be mixed in with other sources of revenue. Jan Sassman said that it stresses the holistic nature of the solid waste enterprise, it removes the issue of the landfill paradox, and it stresses a fee based on services rather than a fee based an the amount of material brought in. Commissioner Gordon verified that the fees would all go on the County tax bill. Chair Brown asked for something in writing about why it is good to eliminate the tipping fee and why the tipping fee will dramatically decrease up to 2009. Jan Sassman said that the tipping fee is decreasing now because we are increasing the amount of the waste stream that is diverted to recycling. John Link thanked the SWAB for all the hard work. He is interested in how the other jurisdictions have sold this pre-paid fee to the citizens. Commissioner Jacobs said that once there are answers to the County Cammissianers' questions and they could be incorporated into the report, it would be useful to have this presentation made to the municipalities before the Assembly of Governments meeting in late April. Jan Sassman said that the individuals on the SWAB had been charged with the task of communicating with their individual governments. Commissioner Jacobs would like to have each jurisdiction hear the presentation before coming to the Assembly of Gavernments meeting in order to have the individual questions and concerns addressed. Jeff Hughes pointed out that the SWAB recommendation is very common in counties in North Carolina. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board