Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20031120APPROVED 03/15/2004 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 20, 2003 The Board of County Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Margaret W. Brown, and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John Link, Assistant County Managers Rod Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other county staff will be appropriately identified 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. 1. Pre-K/Childcare Facility Considerations PowerPoint presentation by Michele Rivest, Executive Director, Orange County Partnership for Young Children. Michele Rivest gave a presentation on early education and then schools. Some Basics - Early Childhood refers to children ages 0-5 - Preschool -part-day programs - Child carelday care -full day for working parents - Child Care Subsidies -child care scholarships for low-income children (DSS and CCSA Smart Start) - Early Childhood Education -can refer to any type of program for 3-5 year olds - Star (rated} License - NC licensing standard (5 star is highest quality) Quick Facts - 5, 989 children ages 0-5 - 1, 932 (32°~) ages 0-5 in licensed child care centers - about 70 preschooltchild care center - ages of children -all ages -pie diagram -about 60°~ -are ages 3-5 Types of Programs - Head Start -federal program serving most poor children ages 3-5 - Early head start -federal program serving poor children ages 0-3 - Smart start -state funded program serving children ages 0-5 {child care, child health, and family support} - More at Four -state funded program serving at-risk 4-year old children and OCPYC administrator Commissioner Carey asked about the Mare at Faur program. Michele Rivest said that this is targeted for four-year olds and it is aimed at low income, high-risk children. It is a complement to the Smart Start program. It goes up to 200% of the federal poverty level. Orange County Pre-k Programs - About 1200 children enrolled {3-4 year olds) 0 22°~ in public schools 0 78% in private child care settings School System Involvement In Pre-Kindergarten - Federal IDEA -children with developmental delays/disabilities - School readiness goals - NC "Leandro" Case - Federal "Leave No Child Behind" Public School System Pre-K - Chapel Hill-Carrboro Pre-Kindergarten o Started Head Start program in 1985 o Added private pay9ing parents andlor subsidized children in 1990 o Added More at Four program in 2002 - Orange County Schools Pre-Kindergarten o Started in 2002 o Combines Head Start and More at Four Schools Pre-K Program - Targets disadvantaged low-income children - Provides part-day preschool program - Qualified teachers - Structured curriculum - High quality facilities = 4 or 5 star license Children in Poverty - 902 (12.9%) of children ages 0-5 below the federal poverty level (federal poverty level =less than $15,OOOlyear for a family of three} - 2009 (28.7%} of children ages 0-5 below 200% of federal poverty level o Qualifies far Medicaid, free lunch, subsidies - 700 children receiving child care subsidies Children Served - CHCS - Serves 210 three (3} and four (4} year olds - Blends Head Start, Mare at Four, child care subsidies, and parent fees - 8locations o Ephesus, Rashkis, Glenwood, Carrboro o Seawell, Chapel Hill High School, Carr Court o Lincoln Children Served - OCS - 6$ four (4) year olds - Blended Head Start and More at Four funding - 4locations o Pathways o New Hope o Efland-Cheeks o Central Pre-Kindergarten Funding - Federal Funding o Head Start o EESS/preschool, disabilities, Title I & VI, USDA - State Funding o Subsidy o State education grants o Smart Start o More at Four - Local Funding o United Way o City/County education appropriation o Private donations o Local endowments o Tuition Schools Pre-K Funding - Head Start - 80°~ - More at Four - 13°~ - Federal Funding - 6°~ - Tuition - 1 o Total - $2.4 million o $8,800 per child average (does not include in-kind match) Preschool Site Issues - Location - Transportation - Administrator - Funder preferences - Co-location of other services - Future needs o Expansion of early childhood education o Affordability Michele Rivest said that she understands that the proposal is to develop two central preschool sites in the County. Chair Brown said that it is not in the proposal stage yet They just want the information to think about making a proposal. Michele Rivest said that location is the first consideration. Most parents would say that they would like their preschool program to be located near their homes and where they work. Parents feel comfortable with programs in the school systems. She said that transportation for a central site would be a big issue. The CHCCS does not provide any transportation for its pre-k program, and OCS does provide transportation through Head Start monies. In the southern part of the county, parents have to find ways to transport children. Transportation is very expensive because small children cannot travel on buses, etc. It is a very complex issue. The administrator issue is important and who would be in charge of the program. Chair Brown asked who the administrator is right now and Michele Rivest said that in the CHCCS system, the school system is the administrator. For OCS, Chapel Hill Training Outreach is the administrator. Regarding Funder Preferences, she said that Head Start really prefers community-based programming. Chair Brown asked what is considered a neighborhood. Michele Rivest said that in the OCS they looked at the population statistics (how many children receiving free/reduced lunch, poor under federal poverty guidelines, etc.). They want to make sure that the administrator of the program can reach the high-risk children. Michele Rivest said that with the More at Four programs, someone would have to be it communication with the Governor's office. She made reference to co-location of other services and said that apre-school would not be isolated but would be in proximity to other services. Regarding future needs, they would like to have an expansion of early childhood education. There are many children who are not being served who really need the services. The other need is affordability. The reason the Head Start and More at Four programs work so well is that they do not charge fees to the families. They do receive some childcare subsidies, but it is usually not enough. She thinks that it is great that the Board of County Commissioners is even looking at this issue of preschool education. She said that they are happy to provide any information. Chair Brown asked Michele Rivest to go over what a center could possibly be. Michele Rivest said that County staff did the cost projections. She made reference to the memo from May 16t" and said that these are building requirements only and not program requirements. She said that the estimate uses 18 children per classroom for ages 3-5. There would need to be bathroom space, kitchen facilities, an indoor play area, an outdoor playground, and a staff lounge/meeting room. There are also sanitation requirements. Chair Brown asked about the advantages of establishing a center and Michele Rivest said that it would address some of the gaps in the community. They have not increased capacity in a long time and facility cost is one of the biggest obstacles. She said that co- locating services would be ideal and there needs to be space built into a facility for other services. Chair Brown asked if there were models and Michele Rivest said that there are other models around the State. Ashe County donated an entire school building and rebuilt their entire early childhood system in this facility. This building now houses the preschool program, parks and recreation, and the employment security commission. This is a wonderful approach. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he enjoyed listening to Michele Rivest because she is honest. He made reference to transportation and said that he looked at this issue a couple of years ago, and to put these kids on a bus would cost $250-300 a child because of the harnesses. Also, there would have to be a number of adults an the bus. He asked about other sites besides Ashe County. Michele Rivest said yes and that she would put together a list. Commissioner Halkiotis asked if they were in contact with these other sites and Michele Rivest said yes and that many of the initiatives started through the Smart Start partnership. Commissioner Halkiotis pointed out that for many years there was a bizarre operation in northern Orange County, which was a Head Start program that was run from the Head Start out of Wake County. Commissioner Halkiotis said that it would be important to get the information from the PowerPoint presentation to both school boards. He thanked Michele Rivest for coming. Chair Brown said that this issue could be put on the joint school board meeting agenda in the spring. Commissioner Gordon asked about the transition to kindergarten programs that are offered by the pre-k programs. Michele Rivest said that the transition from pre-k to the school system is very important and it is easier within the school systems. She said that there would be more detailed information from the school systems. Commissioner Jacobs asked Chair Brown about the next step. He did not think that there were going to be two buildings. Chair Brawn said that there are two school systems and both should be offered the opportunity. She said that this has to be a joint effort with the schools. This is the time to throw out ideas and begin discussions. Commissioner Carey said that when he saw this he thought they were talking about one building and not two. He said that this is more complex than he thought it would be. He thought the idea was to build one building in a desirable location and free up space in the schools. After the presentation tonight, it seems like expansion and not a way to free up space in schools. Michele Rivest said that she was talking about what is needed for early childhood education. One strategy would be to help increase the capacity. She was not trying to speak to the schools issue. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Ashe County and asked for a comparison of the trade-offs for a centralized location versus dispersed locations. He asked Michele Rivest to bring examples of the trade-offs. Michele Rivest said that she would do that. She said that this County already has a decentralized approach that is a mix of the public and private sectors. They could think about it as a school-based program but they need to look at the big picture. She thinks the community prefers decentralized programs. Commissioner Gordon said that it was important to focus on the educational aspect of the programs -that they be high quality and affordable. 2. Employee Pay & Benefits Personnel Director Elaine Holmes distributed a handout. The purpose of this item was to receive an update on employee pay and benefits and consider directions far the remainder of the current year (2003-04) and 2004-05. The update report, which was received by the County Commissioners earlier, includes updates an the Classification and Pay Study, Pay Plan Elements, Benefits for Domestic Partners, and Housing Wage. Classification and Pay Study: Effective April 14, the Board approved implementation of Phase 1, including: - adoption of recommended position classifications and salary grades - adoption of the new stepless salary schedule - implementation of Phase 1 salary administration o increasing salaries up to new minimums o granting a 2.5% service based increase Phases 2 and 3 - Purpose - to address salary compression - Phase 2 is an additional 2.5°~ for employees with 4 years service (impacts 435 employees) - Phase 3 is an additional 2.5°~ for employees with 7 years service (impacts 308 employees) Phase 2 and 3 Implementation - Board authorized Phase 2 implementation and budgeted this effective January 19, 2004 - Phase 3 projected for July 1, 2004 Move Forward Option Funds Available - from unused amount budgeted for health insurance {$109,718) - from updated Phase 2 cost estimate {$8,353) - total 2003-04 amount available $118,071 Funds Required - to move Phase 2 to December 8, 2003 ($54,063} - to authorize Phase 3 and implement April 26, 2004 ($61,399) - total 2003-04 amount required $115,462 Basis for Move Forward - completes classification and pay implementation in 2003-04 within funds already budgeted - reduces new funding required in 2004-05 - addresses salary compression - responds to employee concerns and needs - allows the County to return to the normal process of pay plan consideration far 2004-05 Pay Plan Elements - Major elements have included o Cost of living o In-range salary increase o Meritorious service awards - Present status o Approved budgets for 2002-03 and 2003-04 have not included funding for these 2004-05 Preliminary Outlook Sufficient funding within Board's parameters to: - Reinstate in-range salary increases at 2.5°~ level to provide for progression in the salary range for employees whose performance is proficient or higher - Reinstate meritorious service awards at previous levels to provide a means for supervisors to recognize top performing employees Needs - maintain the pay plan - provide a means for employees to advance in the pay plan - provide a means for supervisors to recognize top performing employees Next Steps -Pay Plan Elements - provide direction to staff - staff will incorporate this in the budget process for 2004-05 Benefits for Domestic Partners - earlier consideration {Fall 2000 and Spring 2001) - health insurance change - estimated annual cost - $18,000 - possible effective date -January 1, 2005 Housing Wage - background o consideration of minimum housing wage o June 2003 report with options - housing wage reserve fund ($45,000 budgeted this year) - update current housing wage data personnel survey She said that they had an MPA student over the summer that did a survey of all local employees looking for other ideas to address housing affordability issues. A lot of local employees share the same concern about affordability for employees, but there are no specific programs in place. Commissioner Gordon asked her to go aver Section A, the phase plan, and attachment 4. Elaine Holmes said that Section A is the old plan. Attachment 4 is the move forward C05tS. Commissioner Gordon asked several clarifying questions, which were answered by Elaine Holmes. Commissioner Jacobs said that it seems reasonable, using funds available, to move up the dates and to extend benefits to domestic partners -especially since BCBS is not going to charge an additional 1 °~ premium. He asked for more information on the housing wage. There is a question of providing a housing wage to employees who do not live in Orange County. Chair Brown said that they are being asked to authorize moving forward and approve the effective date of Phase 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to authorize moving forward the approved effective date for Phase 2 implementation from January 19, 2004 to December 8, 2003, using funds already budgeted in 2003-04 and authorize implementation of Phase 3 of the Classification and Pay Study (an additional 2.5 percent salary increase for employees with seven or more years total service as a permanent County employee as of April 14, 2003) and establish the effective date as April 26, 2004, using funds already budgeted in 2003-04. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Elaine Holmes asked about the benefits for domestic partners. Commissioner Carey said that he thought we were going to include it for the next enrollment for January 2004 enrollment and Commissioner Halkiotis agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to include the benefits for domestic partners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS John Link said that the health insurance trust would not allow them to make this effective January 2004. Elaine Holmes said that the time has past to do this from the health insurance trust perspective. 3. Solid Waste Matters Rod Visser said that the first issue is the need to provide the update to the State of the solid waste plan. The second issue is haw much it will cast to provide the current program of services or an expanded program over the next 10 years as the County continues to make progress towards the 61 % reduction goal. The County is currently number one in the State in waste reduction. The staff has been working on the proposal by the Solid Waste Advisory Board and have developed same refinements. He turned the presentation over to Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson. Gayle Wilson said that it is necessary to agree and move forward on the Solid Waste Management Plan. The staff has modified the previous waste reduction part of the solid waste plan based on various concerns by the Board of County Commissioners. The changes are highlighted on page four of the agenda abstract. The changes would have the effect of making the plan a "baseline plan." The modified plan would lengthen the timeline of achieving the 61 °1° reduction goal. Gayle Wilson made reference to the alternative financing and said that staff has modified the approach from the SWAB. They eliminated the prepaid tipping fee portion of the recommendation and they assumed that there would not be a mid-year interim implementation of a fee during the current 03-04 budget year. Key elements of the staff revised financing approach are: - it would be an availability fee rather than a tax - it would be assessed on all improved properties, including tax-exempt, residential, non-residential - it would be billed an the tax bill, beginning in 2004, but identified as a Waste Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Fee - the fee would not be assessed to the University - philosophically, consumers will pay for the services they receive or that are reasonably available to/or that are performed for them - there would be four categories of fees ^ Universal fees -access to drop-off sites, household waste, electronic recycling ^ Rural Curbside Services -those who receive curbside recycling collection in the unincorporated areas ^ Urban Curbside Services -those who receive curbside recycling collection in the incorporated areas ^ Multi-Family Services -those who receive apartmentlcondaminium type recycling services He said that the staff would like to receive some feedback from the Board and agreement in principle. Rod Visser said that Bonnie Norwood and AI Vickers are here from the Solid Waste Advisory Board. Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to page five {key elements of the staff revised financing approach} and asked who would be included in tax-exempt. Gayle Wilson said church property, public housing, non-profits, etc. In answer to a question about schools, Gayle Wilson said that they do not provide direct services to schools so they were not included in the initial proposal. Commissioner Halkiotis asked why the fee would not be assessed to the University. Gayle Wilson said that the University has its awn recycling program. The County provides food waste collection at the Friday Center. Commissioner Halkiotis asked what happens to the University's recycling and C&D. Gayle Wilson said that it goes to private facilities. Last year, the University adopted some guidelines that gives some control over their C&D waste and tries to make them comply with the County ordinance. The private facilities have lower tipping fees. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to review the solid waste management plan before it goes out to hearing. She asked when the transfer station was set to come on line and Gayle Wilson said approximately July 2009. Commissioner Gordon asked when the County would reach the 61 % waste reduction. Gayle Wilson said that it was originally proposed for 2006, but because of delays they have pushed it back to 2008. Rod Visser said that Orange County has reduced waste 40°lo per capita since 1992. During the same timeframe, the per capita waste reduction in the State has been -12°~, which means it has increased by 12°l°. Commissioner Gordon asked that this be highlighted for the State and for the County's colleagues. Jahn Link said that it is a good idea to have a revised plan in place and the fees in place for the towns to understand where the County is going. Commissioner Carey asked about the SWAB's view of the changes in the plan. Gayle Wilson said that the SWAB's position is to maintain the aggressive goal as well as maintain the plan to achieve the goal within the 10-year timeframe. The SWAB is in favor of the MRF, the processing facility, and the expansion of the waste reduction and recycling program. Commissioner Jacobs said that he agrees with Commissioner Gordon about the 61 °I° and he thinks that when this goal was adopted that the State had more of a commitment to supporting local governments than they do now. The County is essentially going it alone. He thinks it is important to articulate that though we are not backing away from the goal, there is less support and we are working against more obstacles and it is going to take longer. He would like to have an educational process and keep the changes as conservative as possible so that people understand. Commissioner Gordon asked about the possibility of the State giving any money. Gayle Wilson said that the only money that is available from the State is a limited number of waste reduction grants. These grants are focused on program start-ups and innovative recycling approaches. Rod Visser said that the County is getting from the State about $20,000 out of $58,000 that they asked for. He said that things that the State used to fund they are not funding anymore. Also, there are mare participants, which makes the allocation lower. Commissioner Gordon asked about the status of the dollars from the towns and if the towns are going to pay fees. Gayle Wilson said that the tipping fees that the towns pay will continue and the fees that they are suggesting are for the property owners only. Commissioner Gordon asked for an estimate of the proposed Universal Services fees. Gayle Wilson said that the ballpark figure is $40-45 annually. Rod Visser said that there could be increments on top of that for additional services. The fees would go into effect July 1, 2004. Commissioner Gordon asked how these fees compared with other counties for similar services. Gayle Wilson said that most counties have an availability fee. The County is taking an additional step towards making the fee more equitable and dividing up the level of services received. Other counties charge one lump fee. Chatham County has an $81 annual availability fee and an additional $34 for unincorporated areas. Wake County has an annual fee of $20 and they have discussed raising this. Durham County has a $65 annual fee. The City of Wilmington has a $229 annual fee that includes trash collection. Cumberland County charges $48 annually. He said that it depends on what you fund as it relates to fees charged. Commissioner Gordon said that it is important to give the rationale to the citizens before laying out the fees. Commissioner Jacobs said that part of the education is that recycling has a cost implication. He applauds the idea of having fees differentiated by level of service. Part of this is thinking of recycling as a utility. Commissioner Gordon said that the other thing is that Orange County has an ethic to try and reduce waste. Unfortunately, as waste is reduced, there are fewer resources. She does think that it is important to provide these services. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board had talked about having a graph to show the reduction of tipping fees and the fees that were supporting solid waste and another one that showed the cost of the service of providing recycling and other collection services. Commissioner Jacobs asked haw long the County has been recycling electronics and Gayle Wilson said for almost 2 years. Commissioner Jacobs suggested writing a letter to the editor of the Raleigh News and Observer, which wrote the other day that Wake County has just instituted the first electronic recycling program in the State by a county. John Link said that he could do this. Jahn Link said that the staff would revise the solid waste plan and come back in January with a schedule of fees to propose to the Board. 4. Boards and Commissions Chair Brown said that Commissioner Carey had suggested that each Commissioner pick two boards and then do a round robin approach starting with the least senior member of the Board. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that each Commissioner choose one board and then do a round robin. Commissioner Halkiatis said that he does not like any of these processes. He thinks that the County Commissioners should serve on boards that they feel they bring certain strengths to. He is also not in support of the seniority suggestion by Commissioner Carey. He thinks the Board should consider sunsetting some of these groups. He does not understand why it is so necessary to spread themselves so thin. Commissioner Jacobs suggested taking the list alphabetically of every advisory board on which a Commissioner serves and the number of Commissioners, and whether it is required or a liaison, and each Commissioner gives their opinion about whether they think a Commissioner has to serve an the board. He thinks a lot of the commissions could have a Commissioner liaison, which would come to the meeting if needed and would not have to come to every meeting. He thinks that there are some boards that feel slighted if a Commissioner does not show up at the meeting. He would like to designate the boards and commissions that should be sunset, which ones should have a Commissioner "on call", and which ones should have a Commissioner assigned. Commissioner Carey said that he knows that they will be making some assignments and the biggest problem is to have a group of committees that no one selects. He does not think someone should serve on one that they are not interested in. He agrees with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion. Commissioner Gordon agreed about sunsetting and defining liaison. She said that some of the lists were not accurate. Chair Brown said that they have sent the list out three times to check for accuracy Commissioner Halkiotis asked if there was a list of boards that are mandated to have a Commissioner serve. Chair Brown pointed out the list. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Chair and the Clerk for the work put into this. He suggested using the list of Boards and Commissions and adding a blank column so the County Commissioners can write their preferences for each board (sunset, on-call, no Commissioner needed, and assigned Commissioner}. The Board agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion. 5. Orange Community Housing and Land Trust (OCHLT) Board of Directors Appointment Chair Brown asked if anyone wanted to be on this board and no one volunteered. This will be added to the list of boards and commissions. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Margaret Brown, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board