HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20031209APPROVED 411 312 0 04
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING
SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
DECEMBER 9, 2003
6:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a special session an Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at
6:00 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret Brown,
Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod
Visser and Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
NOTE:
It was announced that if the items below were not addressed during the Special Meeting due to time
constraints, they would be addressed in the order they appear on the agenda for the Regular
Meeting at 7:30.
ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Item 8-n (Breasifeeding Education and Support ProgramlExpanded Food & Nutrition Education Program -
Two Month Extension} was added (aqua).
Item 5-c (Resolution of Recognition on UNC's Women's Soccer Team Winning the 2003 NCAA Women's
College Cup} was added to the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. (light blue}.
Item 6-a (Orange County Arts Grant Recipients (Spring, 2003} updated sheet was added {pink}.
There was an updated multi-colored sheet regarding next steps on analysis of potential school merger.
There were revised and updated applications far the animal shelter operations task farce -item 9-g-2.
(salmon).
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
ITEMS FOR DECISION -CONSENT AGENDA
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
8-a. *Minutes
The Board approved the minutes of the September 2, 2003 regular meeting as submitted by the
Clerk to the Board.
8-b. *Appointments
None
8-c. *Motor Vehicle Property Tax ReleaselRefunds
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a refund resolution, which is incorporated by
reference, related to 38 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes.
8-d. *Agreement Renewal with School of Dentistry far Dental Director
The Board approved the renewal and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement between the
Health Department and the UNC Dental School for the services of a Dental Director pending County
Attorney review.
8-e. *Budaet Amendment #7
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda far separate consideration.
8-f. *Second Reading -Non-Emergency Private Ambulance Franchise Application
The Board awarded anon-exclusive franchise to provide non-emergency ambulance transportation
services to NEMTA, Incorporated of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (NEMTA is the incorporated name of Non-
Emergency Medical Transit Authority of the Carolinas, a new corporation based in Chapel Hill}.
~. Contract Approval: Innovative Design for Wastewater Treatment Design Services at
Northern Human Services Center and Feasibility Analysis of Sustainable Design Elements
The Board approved a contract for feasibility analysis of specific sustainable design elements at the
Northern Human Services Center (NHSC) per Innovative Design proposal dated April 27, 2003 in an
amount not to exceed $36,410; and design services related to the wastewater treatment system at the
Center using living machine technology in an amount not to exceed $72,500, plus incidental expenses that
will be paid to consultant on a reimbursement basis; and exempted this contract from the
architectlengineering selection process as provided in GS 143-64-32 and authorized the Chair to sign,
contingent upon County Attorney and staff review.
8-h. *Housing Bond Program - OPC Foundation for Mental Health
The Board approved the transfer of the appropriation of $300,000 in Housing Bond funding from the
Club Nova Apartment Complex sponsored by the OPC (Orange-Person-Chatham} Foundation for Mental
Health and the N.C. Mental Health Association to a proposed property acquisition project for homeless,
disabled adults, and families.
8-i. *Impact Fee Reimbursement
The Board approved the impact fee reimbursement request from Habitat for Humanity of Grange
County, NC, Inc. for $22,407 for seven new homes.
8~, *Consideration of Funding Support for Eno River Land Acquisitions
The Board approved the appropriation of $55,000 to the Eno River Association toward preservation
of two tracts along the Eno River -the Poplar Ridge and Eno Wilderness properties.
8-k. *Proposed Amendment to the Joint Planning Area Zoning Atlas for the Rusch Hollow Site on
Rusch Road (JPA-CH-Z-1-03)
The Board approved a proposal to amend the Joint Planning Area {JPA) Zoning Atlas to change the
zoning of approximately 3.03 acres of land northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road
from Residential-1 (R-1} to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C} zoning district.
8-I. *Resolution Supporting Governor Easley in Opposing an Outlying Landing Field at Any Site
that is Unacceptable to the State of North Carolina
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a resolution as stated below supporting
Governor Easley in opposing an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) at any site that is unacceptable to the State
of North Carolina.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING GOVERNOR EASLEY IN OPPOSING AN
OUTLYING LANDING FIELD AT ANY SITE THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO
THE STATE AND CITIZENS OF NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Navy has selected an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) site known as the Washington/Beaufort
County site; and
WHEREAS, the Navy's strategy to take in excess of 30,000 acres, equaling approximately 50 square miles,
of prime farmland surrounding the OLF site, in bath counties, by fee-simple transactions or condemnation,
will affect an estimated one hundred seventy-one persons and seventy-four households, many who are
fourth to seventh generation landowners; and
WHEREAS, Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-
income populations in the United States; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Commerce has determined Washington County to be a Tier I
county, having 20.7 percent of the total population living in poverty and 30.3 percent of persons under 18
years of age living in poverty, as indicated in the U.S. Census Bureau 1995 County Estimate of Poverty,
and approximately 50 percent of Washington County residents are minority; and
WHEREAS, the economic impacts of an OLF violate the spirit and letter of Executive Order 12898; and
WHEREAS, the OLF site is located adjacent to an international treasure of wildlife known as the Pocosin
Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, home to more than 100,000 migratory birds, including snow geese, tundra
swan and Canada geese, for six months of every year; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that it "strongly recommended against building an
OLF close to a National Wildlife Refuge"; and.
WHEREAS, a scientist who worked far the Navy's own contractor that conducted the bird study has come
forward in strong opposition to this site as being one of the most dangerous locations in the country for Bird
Aircraft Strike Hazards; and
WHEREAS, Commissioners of both Beaufort and Washington counties have gone on record in opposition
to the proposed OLF site; and
WHEREAS, Governor Easley opposes this OLF site and any other OLF site that would have such severe
negative impacts and which would be unacceptable to the State of North Carolina;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SUPPORTS GOVERNOR EASLEY IN OPPOSITION TO AN OUTLYING LANDING FIELD AT THIS AND
ANY SITE THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND CALLS UPON
MEMBERS OF OUR STATE'S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO JOIN THE GOVERNOR, LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND CITIZENS IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE
THREATENED BY THE QUESTIONABLE PROJECT.
This 9th day of December 2003.
$-m. Section 8 Project Voucher Program
The Board approved the execution of the Agreement to Enter into Housing Assistance Payments
Contract, Parts I and II, with the Club Nova Apartments, LLC for the proposed Club Nova Apartments in
Carrboro upon the review and approval of the County Attorney.
8-n. Breastfeeding Education and Support ProgramlExpanded Food & Nutrition Education
Program -Two Month Expansion.
The Board authorized the allocation of $27,000 from the Human Services Safety Net Reserve to
provide a time extension of two months for the In-Home Breastfeeding Support Program/Expanded Food
and Nutrition Education Program.
VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA:
8-e. *Budaet Amendment #7
The Board considered approving budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2003-04.
Commissioner Gordon said that she had a question about the Orange County Schools
middle school #3. She saw that the Orange County School Board discussed this at the
December 1St meeting. She would like this report. She thought we were at the site selection
stage and that it would last a little while longer. She thought the County Commissioners were
going to discuss which part of the site would be the school site. She has no problems moving
ahead with it. She asked what kind of engineering and design was going to happen and when.
It was her understanding that the site is not known yet.
Assistant County Manager Rod Visser said that this discussion is going to come in late
January ar early February. The OCS has already engaged an architectural firm. The staff is
trying to make sure that there is an appropriation in place and that the OCS has the money to
pay the architects. There is no building architectural design going on yet.
A motion was made Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
approve the attached budget ordinance amendment and capital project ordinance for the
Health Department, Planning Department, and Orange County Schools Middle School #3.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
REPORTS
10-a. Whitted Human Services Center- Update on Renovations and Space Allocation
The Board considered updated information an the progress of renovations at the Whitted Human
Services Center (Buildings "A" and "B"), and a diagram of interior space allocation for when the center is re-
occupied and provided feedback to staff.
John Link said that the Board had asked for an update on the space allocation that is being
planned once renovations are completed. He made reference to the diagrams in the packet with the
"before" and "after" renovations. He said that all departments would get more space because the
Department on Aging is moving out voluntarily to the Meadowlands.
Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones said that OPT has moved to the Public
Works area in a modular unit and the Department on Aging liked their place at the Meadowlands so much
that they would like to stay there permanently. She said that this frees up the basement in the Whitted
Building. These areas have been reallocated to Housing and Community Development. The library will
have some staff people in the area that was previously the Nutrition Office. Department of Social Services
will occupy the area that was previously used as the arts and crafts roam. The family counseling space will
let go of their lease downtown and will move into the basement. The Department of Social Services will
take over the space that was used by Housing and Community Development an the third floor.
Commissioner Gordon said that there was a concern that the library space has been reduced.
Pam Janes said that the library space has not been reduced. They have picked up 572 square feet
downstairs and the area they thought they would lose in the audiovisual room has not been lost.
John Link said that until the last week or so, the library was not going to get additional space until
he met with all department heads to discuss space needs. He made the decision that created space far the
library downstairs that was originally planned for a common area for employees to work on projects. It
seemed the priority was higher to provide additional space far the library.
Chair Jacobs said that he gat an email today from the Friends of the Library saying that they are
losing significant shelf space by the way this is configured. Jahn Link said that as of today, the staff did a
walk through and it was determined that there is certain shelf space that would not meet code.
Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo said that is correct and they will lose one set of shelves.
Based on the weight of the books, there are restrictions. One set of shelves will be lost down the middle of
the children's section. It has been reallocated to the hallway and other areas of the library.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6-b. Status of Women Report 2002 - Housina Affordability for Women in Oranae Count
The Board received a presentation on the 2002 Status of Women Report on Affordable Housing
in Orange County, and provided feedback or comments to staff.
Milan Pham from the Department of Human Rights and Relations introduced Bonnie Gates,
immediate past chair of the Commission for Women. Ms. Gates is also on the Affordable Housing Advisory
Board. The current chair was ill and not able to attend.
Bonnie Gates presented the Status of Women Report 2002 on Housing Affordability for Women in
Orange County. She highlighted some of the findings of the report. She also circulated a fact sheet. A full
copy of the report can be obtained from the Department of Human Rights and Relations. She gave the
following facts:
- affordable housing is a primary barrier to economic equality for Orange County women
- there are nearly 3,000 female heads of households
- of those 3,000, 76% earn at or below median family income and 25°~ earn below federal
poverty levels
- 14.8% of households in Orange County live in poverty and women head half of those
households
- the median family income for Orange County in 2000 was $59,874
- women on the average, earned only $31,328 in 2000
- in order to afford rent for aone-bedroom apartment in Orange County at market value, a
woman must make at least 50°~ of the area median income, meaning she must make
approximately $30,000
- Orange County has the highest average price in the Triangle as well as the highest rate of
annual increase
- There are many efforts to increase home ownership and to improve access to affordable
housing for Orange County citizens
There are several recommendations from the report. Since Orange County has already taken
steps through an affordable housing band and the advisory board to create mare money to increase the
affordable housing stock, she addressed the information and public image portion of affordable housing.
She said that residents are not aware of all the programs Orange County has to offer for people seeking
affordable housing. The Commission far Women recommends that steps be taken to increase public
awareness of available assistance via print, audio, and broadcast media. Also, public perception of
affordable housing is by and large negative. There is an equation of affordable housing with cheap housing
and decrease in property values. The Commission for Women recommends a public ad campaign-advising
residents of the benefits of affordable housing for individuals in need as well as the community at large.
The Commission for Women is dedicated to improving affordable housing in Orange County and is happy to
assist.
In closing, she said that they would like to commend the Board of County Commissioners on the
passage of the affordable housing bond package and continued support of the Commission for Women and
the Department of Human Rights and Relations.
Commissioner Gordan asked about the graph on page 15 -comparison of incomes of full-time
year-round workers by gender. Bonnie Gates said that in Orange County women make less than men, in
Carrbaro it is fairly equal, in Chapel Hill men make more, and in Hillsborough men make more. On the
average, women are only making approximately 75°l0 of what men make and this is a barrier in obtaining
affordable housing.
Milan Pham said that this due in large part to the inflated salaries of male-tenured professors at
UNC.
Commissioner Halkiotis thanked Ms. Gates and asked about page 24 where there is a statement
by her. He read the statement, as follows, "As a developer, she feels that governmental changes requiring
additional costs for the builder are a primary barrier to affordable housing. It's not an easy process." He
asked for a few examples of what she was talking about. Bonnie Gates said that being a builder and a
developer, there are regulations that have been implemented that are necessary, but some of them
increase the cost of affordable housing and almost make it prohibitive. One that has not been approved is
that you cannot burn debris and there are tip fees that may be implemented, which will drastically increase
costs for lots. There is a lot of uncertainty for developers when they begin to process an application for
development. Some things are required that may or may not be in the regulations. It often takes a
minimum of two years for a development to be approved and processed. All of this contributes to the high
cost of housing. Land cost is also extremely high in Orange County.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that Chair Jacobs has set up a meeting this Thursday morning with
local contractors to discuss debris removal and clearing of land. These are issues that can run up the cost
of building and development and they need to know these things. He thanked Ms. Gates for pointing it out
and having the courage to say it. He wanted her to know that Orange County government is looking into
this issue even before this report was given.
Commissioner Carey made reference to the chart on page 15 and if it represented the place of
residence ar place of employment. Milan Pham said that it was based on place of residence. A large
portion of the tenured faculty at Chapel Hill also live in Chapel Hill.
Chair Jacobs cautioned staff and advisory boards not to mix up median and average. Using
average housing costs is deceptive compared to median because there are some extremely expensive
houses that skew the numbers. Regarding the suggestions far improvement, he likes the idea of an
advertising campaign. He suggested getting the real estate community involved in this. He suggested
doing a press release about this report. Bonnie Gates said that she is a realtor and there is an ongoing
committee for affordable housing.
Chair Jacobs made reference to item 8-n, the breastfeeding education and support program,
where the federal government has cut funding. He asked that staff connect with the Commission for
Women and look into it. The County has just extended it far two months.
6-c. Resort of the Efland Cheeks Park (Phase II1 Conceot Plan Review Committee
The Board received a report of the Efland-Cheeks Park (Phase 2} Concept Plan Review
Committee and provided feedback and direction to staff regarding the proposed Phase 2 facilities, which
staff can then incorporate into a draft site plan.
Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that voters approved a park
band in 2001 and it included $250,000 for additional facilities and park development at Efland Cheeks Park.
In June 2003 the concept plan review committee was appointed and Commissioner Carey and
Commissioner Halkiotis were appointed to this committee. The committee completed work in 35 days. He
made a PowerPaint presentation.
Background
Co-located with Efland Cheeks Elementary School
County, OCS agreement on park
Concept Plan developed for park - 1996
Phase 1 constructed using 1997 County bonds, opened 2000
Concept Plan Review Committee
Review Existing Concept Plan
Use Guiding Principles from Board
Develop recommendations for Phase 2 of park
Recommended Phase 2 Facilities
Picnic shelter
Lighting of existing playing field and walking track
Paved (ADA} trail from community center to new shelter
Relocate playground equipment
'/-mile of nature trails (including connection to Richmond Hills)
Parking, as needed
Additional Items
Ask County and OCS to explore grading and re-seeding of the "northern field" far flexible play areas
Address the existing sediment basin during Phase 2, perhaps as wetlands restoration
Conclusion
Committee used projected cost estimates to develop facility options
Cost estimated to be $231-297,000
Top priorities are picnic shelter and lighting
Dave Stancil said that the timeframe from Board approval to consideration of a contract for
construction would be approximately four months and that the construction would take six to twelve months.
The committee has also asked that staff continue to engage the community as construction proceeds.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the work would be totally supervised by the Recreation and Parks
Director and if another consultant would be hired. Dave Stancil said that they do not intend to hire a
consultant. Recreation and Parks will be responsible for overseeing the construction. Commissioner
Halkiotis would like the staff to be given some direction on the northern field and the cast of grading and
seeding it. Also, there has been discussion about a trail from Richmond Hills. This is the time to have a
discussion because the school system is preparing to fence in this area far security reasons, and the gate
should be put in the right place.
Chair Jacobs asked about the picnic shelter and if there are two possible sites. Dave Stancil said
that originally the picnic shelter was proposed north of the community center. At the last committee
meeting, it was noted that it might be out of the way for same of the activities. The staff will come back with
a draft site plan for the picnic shelter.
Chair Jacobs proposed that at some point in the near future that the Board looks at a goal or policy
for no net loss of trees on properties that the County owns and develops.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the budget and if it goes to the $297,000 if the Recreation and
Parks Department has the money. Dave Stancil said that they would not know the exact amount until they
get to the level of having bid documents.
Commissioner Carey made reference to Commissioner Jacobs' comment about no net lass of trees.
He likes the sound of it, but before the staff brings back a policy, they should bring back an analysis of the
implications of that. He wants more information on the implications and casts before a policy is fashioned.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the Commission for the Environment work on this.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that on the surface he supports the one far one. However, if it is only
going to be County government, then we may as well beat our heads an a wall. He would like to make this
part of a larger package to have a visit with forestry counterparts.
6-d. Chapel Hill Township Park -Status Report, Selection of Name, and Process for Submittal
of Master PIanlPotential Phase I (Parkl to Town of Carrboro
The Board received a status report an the Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus
Master Plan, considered selection of a name for the site, and reviewed the process and timetable for
submittal of the Master Plan and a Conditional Use Permit application far a possible phase I of the
Township Park to the Town of Carrboro and schedule the Master Plan, phasing and cost estimates, and
construction plans for discussion at a work session in early 2004.
Chair Jacobs said that the idea is not to review the master plan in any detail. The Board will
schedule this for a work session in early 2004.
David Stancil gave some background about the park. A 21-acre portion of the site was found to
captain an archaeological site of possible significance and this area has not been designed beyond the
inclusion of a few loop trails. He made reference to a memorandum and table regarding the Town of
Carrboro's approval process. The site is in the joint planning area and the Carrboro transition area, and
permitting would go through the Town. The site is consistent with the transition area plan, which shows
both a school and a park in this area.
There are two options. The first is a submittal of a conditional use permit, or CUP, application to
the Town. Each phase will require its own CUP application. The Town's estimate an a decision of each
application of this nature is one year from submittal. The second option can only be considered if there is
no above ground structures as part of phase one. This would be a joint CauntylTown memorandum of
understanding. This would require a deletion of the picnic shelter and any other above ground structures.
The Town has agreed to consider phase I of the park in the context of the draft master plan, with the
understanding that the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of Aldermen may make changes to
the plan subsequent to the phase I application.
The second part of this item is the consideration of a name for the park. Page six has a list of
Tutelo-Saponi names as was requested by the Board last year. The names and pronunciations come frorr
the tribal linguist in Washington.
The recommendation for tonight is to discuss the possible naming far the site, discuss the
possible timetable for submittal of phase I of the park to Carrboro, and agree to discuss the site details anc
master plan at a work session in early 2004.
Public Comment
Terri Tyson said that she was a member of CHATPEC and she served as the representative from
Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Commission. She said that she presented what she believed would be
important to be included in the park. As a resident of Chapel Hill, she was pleased to learn that the site
would have a park that could be used by all residents of Orange County. It was important to her that this
park includes many active recreational facilities such as athletic fields, playgrounds, and perhaps an
outdoor pool. As a former director of programs far senior citizens in Orange County, she also felt it was
essential that the park have recreational amenities that seniors enjoy. Greenways and loop walking trails
were also priorities for the work group. She spent a year working on this project and at the end was
impressed that the master plan was a wonderful accomplishment. She recently learned that some groups
were speaking out against this park and wants the entire site to remain as open space. She is against this
idea. She said that she wanted to advocate for the concept plan for this park to be approved and for
progress on building the recreational facilities to go forward as soon as possible. She believes that the
average voter believed that the 2001 bond money would be used partly for active recreation and for creating
much needed parks.
Chair Jacobs said that he received a call from Patrick Sullivan from the Orange County
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board who indicated support far the recreation aspect of this park
Chair Jacobs clarified with Dave Stancil that we can advance the master plan into Carrboro's
planning process before reviewing the details. Dave Stancil said yes, with the understanding that it is non-
binding on both ends.
Commissioner Carey supported this idea.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to advance the
master plan far submittal to Carrboro for a conditional use permit application.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Dave Stancil said that the master plan will be used as context for the specific phase I application.
Chair Jacobs asked about the naming of this park.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the names and the usage of the English translation. The
main problem is that they are not easy to pronounce. She said that Latahkoi was probably the easiest one
to pronounce.
Chair Jacobs said that Moni Nanka, Still Pand, also sounds like it reads.
Commissioner Gordan said if we use the Saponi name, the English translation should be stated
also and vice versa.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that he would agree with using the English translation first then the
Saponi name in parenthesis.
Commissioner Gordon said that the most generic is Two Rivers or Twin Creeks. She likes Twin
Creeks, if it is going to be in English, because it is representative of the area.
The Board agreed to name the park Twin Creeks and to use the Saponi name in parenthesis.
Chair Jacobs thanked the members of the work group for their participation and said that they will
be informed when the Board looks at the master plan in detail. The work group members would have an
opportunity to comment at the work session.
RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
5-b. Endorsement in Support of Town of Carrboro's Smith Level Road Resolution
The Board considered endorsing the Town of Carrboro's resolution regarding future
improvements to Smith Level Road.
Craig Benedict said that this road is a two-lane road south of NC 54. In the Transportation
Improvement Program, it is programmed far widening in the future. How the widening occurs has been a
concern of the Tawn and others in that it should be accommodated by two lanes with expanded
intersections (turn lanes}, to include sidewalks, curb and gutter where necessary, and bicycle ways.
Presently, NCDOT has suggested making sections of the road four lanes, and Carrboro wants to add
capacity to the road with the other improvements. Carrboro recognizes in the resolution that NCDOT
should proceed to acquire right-of-way for afour-lane section in the event that the expanded intersection
needed the additional right-of-way and also that the extent of the widening of Smith Level Road only
continue to Rack Haven Road, which is the potential entrance point to CHCCS High School #3. This is an
endorsement of the resolution, which will be forwarded to the MPO.
Commissioner Gordan said that she does not believe that there is any intent for this to go beyond
Rock Haven. The question has to do with how long it will be four lanes with this median. She has talked
with Alex Zaffron and gotten information from the Carrboro staff and they feel like they have made progress
with NCDOT. It may be the case because of the peak flow traffic that the high school would not cause any
additional traffic on this road beyond buildout at the densities previously planned. She supports this
resolution.
Commissioner Brown said that it is important to point out that during their discussions on smart
growth with the CHCCS Board, she and Chair Jacobs had invited others to attend and representatives from
NCDOT consistently came to these meetings. She thinks they understood the cooperation that NCDOT
needs to share with the Town of Carrboro. It is clear if this is not corresponding to NCDOT's calendar on
improving this road, that the citizens of Orange County would have to pick up the tab for a considerable
amount of money to upgrade the road for the high school, then NCDOT would have to come back a year
later and redo it. Coordinating the two projects is extremely important.
Chair Jacobs added that they owe appreciation to Chuck Edwards with NCDOT.
Commissioner Brawn asked that the cover letter mention the protection of the University Lake
Watershed and that this is the reason why the road is not widened any further than to Rock Haven Road.
Commissioner Halkiatis supports what Commissioner Brawn said and if there is a potential of
savings to the citizens, then there is going to have to be a concentrated effort of the school systems,
Planning, and NCDOT to make this happen.
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to endorse
the Town of Carrboro's resolution regarding future improvements to Smith Level Road.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA
9-g,;, Appointments
(1) *Affordable Housing Advisory Board
The Board considered an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (ARAB}.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint Ms.
Jabrina Robinson to the at-large vacancy on the Affordable Housing Advisory Board far a term ending
June 30, 2005.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
(2) *Animal Shelter Operations Task Force
The Board considered appointments to the Animal Shelter Operations Task Force.
Resident of Hillsborough- Appointed by BOCC
A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint George
Eberle to the Hillsborough position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
At -Large Positions- Appointed by the BOCC
- A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint
Bonnie Norwood to an At-Large position
r A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Carey to appoint
James Cramer to an At-Large position.
- A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Daniel
Textoris to an At-Large position
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Resident of Carrboro- Appointed by the BOCC
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to appoint
Andrew Sleeth to the Carrboro position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Resident of Chapel Hill -Appointed by the BOCC
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Brown to appoint Linda
Schmoldt to the Chapel Hill position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
BOCC - no one volunteered for this position
Commissioner Halkiotis asked that Chair Jacobs work with this group since he has worked with the
department in the past and he owns a lot of animals. Chair Jacobs may have too many commitments to
do this justice.
(3) *Commission far the Environment
The Board was to consider making an appointment to the Commission for the Environment (CFE}.
DEFERRED
(4) *Visitars Bureau of Chapel HiIIJOrange County
The Board was to consider one reappointment and one new appointment to the Visitors Bureau of
ChapeltOrange County (Visitors Bureau}.
DEFERRED
(5) Chapel Hill Planning Board
The Board was to consider one reappointment and one new appointment or continuation of term on the
Chapel Hill Planning Board.
DEFERRED
(6) *Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task Force
The Board was to consider appointments to the Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task Force.
DEFERRED
The Berard took aten-minute break after the special meeting 7:25 and re-convened at 7:35 pm for the
regular meeting.
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna 5. Baker
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED 4/13/2004 MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
December 9, 2003
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for regular session on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at
7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret Brown,
Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill, Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod
Visser, and Gwen Harvey 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.
Items that are in "italic" and starred (*j will be discussed during the Board of County
Commissioners Special Meeting beginning at 6:00. If they are not addressed during the Special
Meeting due to time constraints, they will be addressed in the order they appear on this Regular
Meeting Agenda.
1. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Chair Jacobs suggested moving item 5-c, Resolution of Recognition on UNC's Women's Soccer
Team Winning the 2003 NCAA Women's College Cup, to the front of the agenda since the members of the
UNC Soccer team have another engagement shortly. The Board agreed with this.
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Jay Bryan presented a letter with some attachments to the Board and said that he was involved
in a formal group that proposed along-range process for determining the comprehensive growth plan for
Orange County. He was also involved in the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force. Attachment D
is from the process. The task force's final recommendations included one entitled, "Putting Community
Building First," which is Attachment E. He said that the task force endorses the idea of local governments
codifying in ordinance farm, community building ideas, including ground rules for discussion and principles
for collaboration. He made reference to Attachment A, which is a draft ordinance to establish the use of
mediation, conflict resolution, and collaborative principles by various public boards and other groups. The
second draft ordinance is concerning the establishment of principles about community building and how to
incorporate the principles into the ongoing planning process. The third is haw to put together acommunity-
building plan for Orange County. He asked the Board to accept the proposed drafts and to set a time next
year to review and discuss the applicability to the County.
Fred Schroeder began to speak, but Chair Jacobs said that they would get to that particular
item further down an the agenda and far him to please wait until then to speak.
Daman Siles, a member of the Orange County Human Relations Commission and a County
employee, thanked the Board for approving the domestic partner benefits for the County. He pointed out
that Orange County is only the second county in the state to extend these benefits to employees.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.)
3. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Gordon reported on two meetings that she attended recently. One was a design
meeting for high school #3 in which Cammissioner Brown was ill and could not attend. They discussed
interior design elements that would affect the overall design of the school. They spent a lot of time
discussing the media center and where it should be located. Assistant County Manager Rod Visser
attended the meeting and she asked him to make his notes available to the Board.
The second meeting was the Southern Community Park meeting in which Chair Jacobs had a
conflict. She asked Parks and Recreation Director Lori Taft to share with the County Commissioners the
results of the meeting. They discussed the aquatic center and the park timeline, with special attention to
public meetings and meetings of the committee. Staff also brought forward some recommended design
changes. There were several different locations recommended for the dog park because the residents
thought it was too close to them. Also, the soccer field was reoriented so the sun would not get into the
players' eyes.
Commissioner Gordon noted that the Orange County middle school had been discussed by the
Board of Education and she asked far a report on this. Also, at the same school board meeting there was a
facility use policy that she would like the Board to receive.
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that there is a Transportation Advisory Committee meeting
tomorrow. Karen Lincoln will report on this.
Cammissioner Carey said that the Orange-Chatham Justice Partnership Board met and developed
some recommendations to come up with a process that implements the goals and objectives as it relates to
adults and juvenile offenders and potential offenders in the County to try and serve the population in a way
that prevents them from coming into contact with the justice system. This effort has been driven by a few
volunteers and one staff person, Trish Vandersea, supported by Sharron Hinton. This has became a huge
effort to maintain the operations of the group consistent with the State requirements for the amount of
money that the County has received for it. They are coming forward with recommendations for carrying out
the objectives.
Cammissioner Halkiotis apologized for forgetting his recycled holiday cards. He will have them
available to the Clerk for viewing tomorrow.
Commissioner Brawn said that there have been several meetings of the OPC Advisory Committee
that is guiding OPC Mental Health into another form. They have been looking at the system that Orange
County and Chatham County have together and to figure out how not to lose these programs, since OPC is
the employee base far these clinics. They want to make sure they continue to make these services
available.
Chair Jacobs referred to the 2004 Agricultural Summit that is to be held an Monday, February 23rd.
It will be held at this time unless there is an objection from the Board.
Chair Jacobs said that it has been brought to the Board's attention about a development in Orange
County in Mebane with 400 units. They have been contemplating working with Mebane anyway on water
and sewer regarding the middle school and the economic development district there. He suggested
sending a letter to Mebane that they would like to have the opportunity to comment and to send Planning
Director Craig Benedict to participate in this consideration of this development.
Chair Jacobs said that in reference to the renovation of the library space in the Whiffed Building,
the Library Task Force needs to be reactivated. With the Board's permission, the group can be asked to
start meeting again. Same of the members would no longer be eligible and there could be nominations at
the next meeting. The task force would talk about the future of the library.
Commissioner Gordon suggested having the staff come back with a charge and then advertise for
additional members.
Chair Jacobs distributed it to the BOCC boards and commissions list and asked the County
Commissioners to return to the Clerk in the next month or so with recommendations of which groups to
sunset, which groups should have a Commissioner liaison or no liaison, and which groups should have a
Commissioner appointed.
Chair Jacobs pointed out that in the earlier part of the meeting (5:30}, they appropriated $55,000 to
help the Eno River Association and the Eno River State Park protect 987 acres in Orange County.
Chair Jacobs congratulated OWASA for winning the tap water tasting contest.
Chair Jacobs asked Health Director Rosemary Summers to give a flu update.
Rosemary Summers said that the flu vaccination season has been very active. For the County
Health Department, they have already given 3,375 doses of vaccine to Orange County residents. They
have no more vaccine available at this time. They are expecting 250 doses tomorrow. These doses will be
reserved for high risk community members - 50 years and older, nursing home residents, chronic care
facility residents, children and teenagers six months to 18 years of age on long-term aspirin therapy or other
high-risk condition, women in 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy, health care workers, and all household
contacts of people at high risk for the flu. They are also serving essential community personnel, such as
first responders, to make sure they have already received the vaccine. They have also surveyed providers
around the community to determine vaccine availability and most providers are at their last few doses.
There are private providers that have the new FluMist, which is a nasal vaccine. This is expensive. It
should only be taken by people 5 years to 49 years of age. They have also been working with both school
systems to get attendance data. They have started a new campaign called WASHH -Water Action Soap
for Healthy Hands. The posters will be displayed in all County buildings, schools, and municipalities.
Commissioner Brawn asked what the Health Department is telling people that call when there is no
vaccine left. Rorie Summers said that they are taking names on a list and referring them to a provider that
has a vaccine.
Chair Jacobs said to let the media know when vaccines are available.
4. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
John Link recognized two Health Department employees that have won state awards -Donna King
and Gloria Brooks. Donna King is the Director of Health Promotion and Education Services and she has
been awarded the Outstanding Health Educator for North Carolina. She has developed an outstanding
public awareness campaign on the West Nile Virus. Gloria Brooks is a Nursing Assistant with the Personal
Health Service Division. She helps prepare the patients for their visit with the physician. She has been
recognized as the Community Health Assistant of the Year for the State.
John Link said that Orange County escaped the effects of Hurricane Isabel with minor damage. The
counties in the east incurred a lot of damage, and the EMS staff went down to Northampton and Terrell
Counties to help. He asked Emergency Management Services Director Nick Waters to cite the employees
that went down to help establish the emergency operation centers in the two counties.
Nick Waters listed the people that went to Northampton County -Gwen Snowden, Jerry Wagner,
Dinah Jeffries, Michael Day, Kent McKenzie, and Mike Tapp. They were selected because they were the
key people that run Orange County's EMS. In Terrell County, three telecommunicators were sent -Mike
Rice, Steve Newton, and Beth Sykes. They received good response back from the counties and all
expenses will be paid by FEMA.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board write a letter of appreciation to each of these EMS
employees.
Economic Development Director Dianne Reid presented a scrapbook of Orange County's 250tH
Anniversary celebration. She gave a brief wrap-up of the Agricultural Heritage Festival. There were 3,750
in attendance. Of those, 3,348 of those people were transported by Orange Public Transportation from the
park and ride lots. Also, 77°l° of the waste from the festival was diverted - 520 pounds of bottles and cans
were recycled, 200 pounds of food and paper was composted, and only 220 pounds was landfilled as solid
waste. They would like to present to Orange County a scrapbook and for it to go to the library for the final
resting place. It can be left with the Clerk for the County Commissioners to look aver before it is presented
to the library. She listed the sponsors that helped fund the celebration. All of their sponsors will be thanked
with a framed print from the Agricultural Heritage Festival. She also gave one to each of the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Gordan asked that there be photocopies of the scrapbook.
Commissioner Brawn asked if this event is to be an annual event, the Agricultural Heritage Festival.
Chair Jacobs said that staff did the most of the work this time and at the Agricultural Summit in February,
they will raise this issue to see if there is support for this on an on-going basis.
~. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS
a. Resolution of Approval and Acceptance of Grant - Acricultural Conservation Easement with
Everett and Lewis Cheek
The Board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of a farmland
preservation conservation easement from Everett and Lewis Cheek; authorizing the Chair and the Clerk to
sign, subject to final review by staff and county attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document
expected to occur by January 31, 2004; and acceptance of a grant of $235,255 from the federal Farm and
Ranch Land Protection Program for the Cheek easement; and approve the Conservation Easements
Capital Project Ordinance.
Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that this is the second of three
agricultural conservation easements. It is 83 acres of land and it is being funded by the Lands Legacy
Program. Half of the funding is from the USDA Farm Protection Program. He turned the presentation over
to Rich Shaw.
Rich Shaw said that Lemola Ayshire Farm is a dairy owned and operated by the brothers, Everett
and Lewis Cheek, and also their families. The farm is located northwest of Carrbaro, and it is in bath
Chapel Hill and Bingham Townships. It's on Dairyland Road. He described the map of the property. The
total farm is about 200 acres, but the subject property is the northern portion. The land is in the University
Lake Watershed and is also east of Pickard Mountain, which is shown in the green area on the left side.
The Cheeks have been operating this dairy since 1925. The Cheeks want to protect this farmland
forever, and in doing so, they will join four of their neighbors who have also protected farmland in this
immediate area, also protecting some of the significant natural area associated with Pickard Mountain.
Those being the Nutters, the Tobens, the Burlingames, and the Keiths, all awning land adjacent to or very
close to this property. He explained some pictures of the property. Notable is that the Cheeks practice no-
till agriculture. They have never had cropland on this property. Neither the cows nor other livestock come
on this property. They do this according to a conservation plan that they have in partnership with the
County and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The conservation easement will ensure
woodland buffers on both sides of Morgan Creek.
The Cheeks have agreed to sell the non-agricultural development rights at the appraised value of
$570,282, or approximately $7,300 an acre. The conservation easement will protect the conservation
values, primarily, the prime farmland on this property.
The Manager's recommendation is that the Board: 1}adopt the resolution approving the acceptance
by Orange County of the conservation easement, and authorizing the Chair and the Clerk to sign the
conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney, with a closing
and recordation of a document expected to occur by January 31, 2004; 2} to authorize the County to accept
$235,255, a grant from the federal government for the Cheek easement; and 3} to approve the conservation
easement's capital project ordinance attached to the materials. The Cheeks were in attendance to answer
any questions.
The fallowing statement was transcribed verbatim.
Lewis Cheek: My name is Lewis Cheek. I'm the younger of the two of them. That doesn't mean all
that much because we're both already in our 70's. Is everybody here from Orange County? Have you ever
noticed how we in Orange County like to bad mouth our County and like to take Orange County's name in
vain because we think taxes are too high, we think regulations are too strict, and we think that Orange
County is oppressing us? But tonight I'd like to say a good word about Orange County. Orange County, in
collaboration with the U. S. government, has seen fit to recognize that there is a need for conservation of
farmland and open space, because open space and farmland has been disappearing at a rapid rate over
the last few years. And we're just glad to be a part of this, because as farmers, your main assets are in
your property, your land. The only way to get money out of it in the past has been to sell it, and it's gone.
So this program allows farmers to get some money from their properly, to still not lase their property, and
not see concrete and houses coming up all around. I've always been a country boy. I like open space. I
like to get out on a beautiful May morning on my tractor and mow a beautiful field of hay. I feel at peace out
there. When I come into town, it's all cluttered. I don't feel at peace. So, to me, this is a great program,
and I would like to commend Orange County for seeing fit to be a part of it.
Chair Jacobs commended the Cheek family. He said that Orange County intends to continue being
aggressive.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the
Manager's recommendation to adopt the resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of a
farmland preservation conservation easement from Everett and Lewis Cheek; authorize the Chair and the
Clerk to sign, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the
document expected to occur by January 31, 2004; and acceptance of a grant of $235,255 from the federal
Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for the Cheek easement; and approve the Conservation
Easements Capital Project Ordinance.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. 'Endorsement in SuaAOrt of Town of Cartboro's Smith Level Road Resolution
The Board considered endorsing the Town of Carrboro's resolution regarding future improvements
to Smith Level Road.
This item was considered at the special meeting.
c. Resolution of Recognition on UNC's Women's Soccer Team Winning the 2003 NCAA
Women's Challenge Cup
The Board considered a resolution to recognize the UNC Women's Soccer Team winning the 2003
NCAA Women's Challenge Cup.
Anson Dorrance thanked the Board far accelerating the meeting. He introduced the two junior
leaders, one of which graduated from Chapel Hill High School.
Commissioner Halkiotis read the resolution.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adopt and
authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as stated below:
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION ON
UNC WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM WINNING THE
2003 NCAA WOMEN'S COLLEGE CUP
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2003, the University of North Carolina Women's soccer team captured the
NCAA Women's College Cup; and,
WHEREAS, under the guidance of Head Coach Anson Dorrance, UNC earned its 18th national title since
1981; and,
WHEREAS, The Tar Heels completed a sweep of six NCAA shutouts to finish with a 27-0 record, the best in
the sport's history; and,
WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina women's soccer team and head coach Anson Dorrance have
placed Chapel Hill and Orange County on the international soccer map; and
WHEREAS, soccer is an integral part of the social and athletic fabric of Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Soccer Symposium Task Force in its 2000 report to the Orange County Commissioners
found that over 4000 Orange County youths are involved in organized soccer programs; and,
WHEREAS, the 2001 Parks and Recreation Bond issue ratified by voters included funds to create a Soccer
Superfund to finance additional fields to be dispersed across the County to support and promote the sport
of soccer;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere
appreciation and recognition to the University of North Carolina women's soccer team, both for their
outstanding achievements and for the inspiration provided by their athletic leadership and teamwork,
particularly to the youth of Orange County.
This the ninth day of December 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients iSpring, 2403)
The Board presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving Spring, 2003
Orange County Arts Grants.
Martha Shannon, Director of the Orange County Arts Commission, thanked the BOCC for
assisting with handing out grant award checks far their spring 2003 Orange County arts. The money
distributed is state money and they are glad to give these checks out, but because of cash flow concerns
earlier, they did not get the money until recently.
Arts Grant Recipients:
The ArtsCenter (Jon Wilner)
Carrbaro Music Festival Committee (Gerry Williams)
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission {Andrew Ross}
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Community Chorus (Pat Brooks)
Chapel Hill Museum (Morgan Kenney and Phoenix Miller}
Chapel Hill Philharmonia (Alex Vogel)
Dr. Iris Thompson Chapman {Dr. Iris T. Chapman)
Grady Brown School -PTA Cultural Arts Enrichment Committee {Libbie Hough}
Hillsborough Arts Council (John Delconte}
Historic Hillsborough Commission {na one available to pick up check tonight)
Meadowmont Community Association {Dave Hill}
Orange County Artists Guild (Monica Ferrell}
StreetSigns Center for Literature and Performance (Joseph Megel)
Theatre Orange {Lynden Harris)
UNC-CH Carolina Union Performing Arts Series {Tracey Coppedge)
b. *Status of Women ReAOrt 2002 - Housing Affordability for Women in Orange Count
The Board received a presentation on the 2002 Status of Women Report on Affordable Housing
in Orange County, and provided feedback or comments to staff.
Considered at special meeting.
c. *Report of the Efland Cheeks Park (1I1 Concept Plan Review Committee
The Board received a report of the Efland-Cheeks Park (Phase 2) Concept Plan Review
Committee and provided feedback and direction to staff regarding the proposed Phase 2 facilities,
which staff can then incorporate into a draft site plan.
Considered at special meeting.
d. *Ghapel Hill Township Park -Status Report, Selection of Name, and Process for Submittal
of Master PlanlPotential Phase I (Park) to Town of Carrboro
The Board received a status report on the Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus
Master Plan, considered selection of a name for the site, and reviewed the process and timetable for
submittal of the Master Plan and a Conditional Use Permit application for a possible phase I of the
Township Park to the Town of Carrboro and schedule the Master Plan, phasing and cost estimates, and
construction plans for discussion at a work session in early 2004.
Considered at special meeting.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS- NONE
8. *1TEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
Considered at special meeting
a. *Mr"nutes
The Board approved the minutes of the September 2, 2003 regular meeting as submitted by the
Clerk to the Board.
b. *Appointments
None
e. *Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a refund resolution, which is incorporated by
reference, related to 38 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes.
d. ~`Aareement Renewal with School of Dentistry far Dental Dr"rector
The Board approved the renewal and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement between the
Health Department and the UNC Dental School for the services of a Dental Director pending County
Attorney review.
e. '"Budaet Amendment #7
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration.
f, 'Second Readin_a -Non-Emer_aency Private Ambulance Franchise Application
The Board awarded anon-exclusive franchise to provide non-emergency ambulance transportation
services to NEMTA, Incorporated of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (NEMTA is the incorporated name of Non-
Emergency Medical Transit Authority of the Carolinas, a new corporation based in Chapel Hill).
~ *Contract Approval: Innovative Desian for Wastewater Treatment Desian Services at
The Board approved a contract for feasibility analysis of specific sustainable design elements at the
Northern Human Services Center {NHSC) per Innovative Design proposal dated April 27, 2003 in an
amount not to exceed $36,410; and design services related to the wastewater treatment system at the
Center using living machine technology in an amount not to exceed $72,500, plus incidental expenses that
will be paid to consultant on a reimbursement basis; and exempted this contract from the
architect/engineering selection process as provided in GS 143-64-32 and authorized the Chair to sign,
contingent upon County Attorney and staff review.
h. *Housina Bond Proaram - OPC Foundation far Mental Health
The Board approved the transfer of the appropriation of $300,000 in Housing Bond funding from the
Club Nova Apartment Complex sponsored by the OPC (Orange-Person-Chatham) Foundation for Mental
Health and the N.C. Mental Health Association to a proposed property acquisition project for homeless,
disabled adults, and families.
i. `Impact Fee Reimbursement
The Board approved the impact fee reimbursement request from Habitat for Humanity of Orange
County, NC, Inc. for $22,407 for seven new homes.
L Consideration of Fundin_g Support for Eno River Land Acquisitions
The Board approved the appropriation of $55,000 to the Eno River Association toward preservation
of two tracts along the Eno River -the Poplar Ridge and Eno Wilderness properties.
k. 'Proposed Amendment to the Joint Planning Area Zoning Atlas for the Rusch Hollow SitE
The Board approved a proposal to amend the Joint Planning Area (JPA} Zoning Atlas to change the
zoning of approximately 3.03 acres of land northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road
from Residential-1 (R-1) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C} zoning district.
1. *Resolution Supportin_g Governor Easley in Opposin_q an 4utlying Landin_g Field at Any
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a resolution, which is incorporated by
reference, supporting Governor Easley in opposing an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) at any site that is
unacceptable to the State of North Carolina.
m, 'Section 8 Project Based Voucher Program
The Board approved the execution of the Agreement to Enter into Housing Assistance Payments
Contract, Parts I and II, with the Club Nova Apartments, LLC for the proposed Club Nova Apartments in
Carrboro upon the review and approval of the County Attorney.
n. *Breastfeedin_g Education and Support Program/Expanded Food & Nutrition Education
Program -Two Month Expansion
The Board authorized the allocation of $27,000 from the Human Services Safety Net Reserve to
provide a time extension of two months for the In-Home Breastfeeding Support Program/Expanded Food
and Nutrition Education Program.
9. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
Next Steps on Analysis of Potential School Mercer iVerbatim}The Board considered
discussing the next steps regarding the examination of potential impacts resulting from a possible
merger of the Orange County Schools and the Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools.
Chair Jacobs: As we said previously, there is a new permutation, the blue color, at our places
that is this agenda abstract in its most recent version.
John Link: At your November 11t" work session, you discussed the elements of four individual
proposals that Commissioners Brown, Gordon, Carey, and Jacobs presented that evening. In addition,
you discussed to some extent the major themes that you had heard at the first two public hearings. And
you also asked the County staff to respond to certain questions that you had that evening that you
would like to have answers to for tonight. And so I'm going to ask Rod Visser, Assistant County
Manager, to walk through briefly the material as we've tried to construct it to your benefit tonight that
responds to your questions and also tries to put into some context the information that you shared as
part of your proposals that evening.
Rod Visser: I'll just try to point out some of the attachments that were provided in response to
some of the questions the Board raised, as John pointed out, and just mention briefly the difference in
the blue version of the abstract that you have in front of you compared to the one that you received last
week. As John noted, at the November 11t" work session, the County Commissioners had their first
opportunity to really talk about the report and the public input that had been provided over the previous
two months. We've prepared this agenda item for your discussion and follow-up on around a number of
major themes. Some of the attachments that are provided will help you organize your discussion about
that; the first four attachments in here are the proposals presented by four of the Commissioners on
November 11t". Three of those four proposals actually mention specifically an interest in pursuing
further collaboration in conjunction with the school systems, and part of your abstract includes a brief
summary of the points from Commissioners Gordan's, Jacobs', and Brown's proposals that dealt with
collaboration.
We also included just for reference purposes a draft collaboration initiative that had been
developed about a year ago, pursuant to conversations between the chairs of the Board of County
Commissioners and the two school boards working in conjunction with Dr. Phil Boyle at the Institute of
Government. That proposal has been discussed a couple of times during the past year, but we hadn't
taken any action on it in light of the analysis that was pending regarding potential merger implications
and funding equity considerations. I guess it would be important to report that I talked with Phil Boyle
probably about six weeks ago, and his circumstances have changed. My understanding is that Dr.
Boyle is going to be leaving the Institute of Government at the end of this academic year, sa it is not
clear that the proposal that was developed a year ago was one that could actually be carried through.
Phil did tell me that he would have some interest in doing it but it's not clear that he'd be able to
accomplish it within the time frame while he's still working for the Institute of Government. So, the
information that's there may still be relevant to the discussion that the Board may have about potential
collaboration.
Another topic that was discussed an November 11th was both Commissioners Brawn and Jacobs
talked about the possibility of convening an educational excellence evaluation group.
Another theme that was discussed as part of those proposals, primarily Commissioner Jacobs,
was a school efficiency study that would be aimed at assessing and providing reassurance to the
community and the Commissioners, and other interested parties that the appropriations that the County
Commissioners were making for education now were being well and efficiently spent. What is new in
this blue sheet, which primarily falls in that area? This is same additional information that the County
Attorney has pulled together that talks in a little bit more detail than what we had in the original abstract
last week about what the statutory provisions are under North Carolina law far the allocation of current
expense funding, for example, by Boards of County Commissioners towards purpose or functions or
projects within Schaal budgets. And I am sure Geof Gledhill can respond to any questions that you
might have about those details.
Another major element of research that the County Commissioners asked for was far a thorough
assessment and presentation on the workings of a countywide supplemental tax. And the County
Attorney likewise has done the work on that. There was a letter prepared that covered same topics that
were not addressed in previous letters that Geof has written over the years on issues that relate to
district taxes. That information was provided for the Board's information as well.
The last topic that you wanted addressed is the proposal contained in Commissioner Corey's
proposal from November 11th about the timing for making a yes or no decision about whether ar not to
proceed with merger.
That describes the materials that you have. One more thing I would add is that in addition to the
information that Geof Gledhill provided about the statutory workings of allocation by funding, there are
two red attachments here that are referred to in the abstract, and they basically provide some
information about the uniform school budget format that is required of school boards throughout the
State of North Carolina, and also same more statutory provisions that are relevant about amendments to
those school budgets.
Commissioner Brown: I would be interested in the analysis of what Geof brought forward and
brought to us in this. Reading the legal material, it is not perfectly clear to me.
Geof Gledhill: Which area are you specifically talking about?
Chair Jacobs: Educational funding.
Geof Gledhill: What was added to the abstract related to educational funding is the notion that
rather than appropriating a lump sum to the schools each year for current expense money, the Board of
Commissioners is empowered to appropriate by purpose and function. And one of the attachments,
Attachment X, gives an example of the degree of division that's contemplated in that law. The other
point that was added to the agenda information was the notion that the efficiency study that has been
proposed by one or more of the County Commissioners fits in with the power granted counties to
request and obtain information from the schools with respect to actually just about anything going on in
the schools. And in that regard, the County Commissioners can request and the boards of education
are required to provide books, records, audit reports, and other information bearing on the financial
operation of the local school administrative unit. So that in the context of an efficiency study, there is
ample power to obtain whatever information is deemed necessary in completing the efficiency study.
That summarizes the changes to the abstract that were made to add those ideas to what was put
together by the staff before that.
Commissioner Brown: Can you give me an example of the first type of funding?
Geof Gledhill: By purpose and function type funding?
Commissioner Brown: Yes.
Geof Gledhill: If you look at Attachment X, which is red, the first grouping -this comes from the
Orange County Schools' budget resolution for 2003-2004, which is the only document that we were able
to obtain in this short time that we had to pull this together. It lists instructional programs. I am not
certain what would be a purpose and what would be a function. But, for example, you could appropriate
your local current expense fund money, which is what the first grouping, section 1, of that budget
resolution reflects. The total of $19 million in local current expense fund, of which $17,205 comes from
the County's per pupil allocation. Yau could allocate in the budget regular instructional programs,
special instructional programs, co-curricular instructional programs, and so forth, if you were so inclined.
That has not been the practice of the Orange County Board of Commissioners for as long as I know.
Your practice has been to go to the bottom line and do a per pupil allocation, and then allow the schools
to create the allocations in their budget. The schools are required to submit to you in a budget request
these allocations. And then you can appropriate on that basis and then they must, in turn, adopt on that
basis if you direct them to, if you appropriate it on that basis.
Commissioner Carey: And if we appropriate on that basis, in order for the school system to
make any changes to that, they'd have to come back to us for approval of any changes.
Geof Gledhill: Within limits. The other attachment that was added is Attachment Y, which is
also red. And it explains in subsection B, the degree to which the budget can be changed by the Board
of Education. And there is leeway for the Board of Education to reallocate, but beyond that leeway, it
would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Brown: Why was it that you could only obtain a copy of the Orange County
School Board's?
Geof Gledhill: I think the answer is because of the amount of time.
Commissioner Brown: How much time?
Geof Gledhill: A couple of days. I do not know what Donna Dean was able to obtain as a
document from the Orange County Schools. I think just because of the amount of time, it is the only one
that could be obtained in the short time.
Rod Visser: What we were actually trying to retrieve was some kind of document that may have
existed. We started with the State Department of Public Instruction to see if there was something on the
website that lays out what the budget format for this is, and it may be out there and we just didn't find it
in a short period of time. So we do not mean to suggest that we did not get what we asked for from
either school system or anything like that; we were just trying to pull together information about what
generically is the uniform school budget format.
Geof Gledhill: Although it does not show up in this attachment, each one of those categories
like regular instructional programs, special instructional programs, has a corresponding number, count
number, in the uniform budget format. That is not shown in the way this is presented, but those da
appear in the base document that the schools used to put their budget together.
Commissioner Halkiotis: It says the Board of Education may amend the budget to transfer
money to or from the capital outlay fund, to or from any other fund, with the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners to meet emergencies, unforeseen and unforeseeable at the time the budget
resolution was adopted. Then it goes on, when such an emergency.....lsthls just for emergency
situations and that's all?
Geof Gledhill: Yes.
Commissioner Halkiotis: So it is not standard operating procedure, day-to-day business stuff,
it's just for an emergency. And how is an emergency defined?
Geof Gledhill: I don't think that it is. The one thing that I will say about it is that it has to be
something that arises after the adoption of the budget. I don't have any experience with this; I don't
think the County has had any experience with this. I don't know what would be regarded to be an
emergency. It's probably something you would recognize if it happened.
Rod Visser: I can offer an example that is provided from a textbook perspective, and this is
digging way back into classes from longer ago than I'd want to admit. The example that I recall being
cited was, for example, if a tornado came through and ripped a roof off the building and a school system
did not have adequate reserves to get that replaced immediately. What this basically provides is a way
around the prohibition that exists in the statutes to keep school systems from just routinely moving
money from current expense to capital and vice versa. There are same checks and balances that were
put in here that require the Board of Commissioners to approve it, and also provide an opportunity for
any other school board in the County to comment on that emergency request prior to the Board of
County Commissioners taking action on it.
Geof Gledhill: And ultimately, there would have to be agreement, I think, between the Board of
Education and the Board of County Commissioners as to whether there is an emergency before it could
be transferred.
Chair Jacobs: Other questions for staff?
Commissioner Gordon: Yes I would like to ask about the countywide supplemental tax. Is
there any more information that we need to know besides what you've given us? I was interested in the
process by which this could take place. Besides your recommendation about the timeline and other
information, but in terms of background information, have you given us everything you can think of?
Rod Visser: Yes, as far as I know. It doesn't mean that you might have asked a question and
we didn't think through it. In the materials here, as I said, Geof Gledhill has written about this topic on a
number of occasions actually dating back to 1990, sometimes with slightly different perspectives each
time. Also, the September 15t" report had quite a bit of material, both in the narrative and in the
appendices, that talks about the statutory workings. We hope that we have covered everything, but we
are certainly wide open to any questions that you might ask.
Commissioner Gordon: In terms of the countywide supplemental tax that the County
Commissioners would ask for on their own initiative, my understanding is a) we could ask for it on our
own initiative; b) it would be a countywide referendum; c) in the referendum document, that it would be
specified if it's capital or whether it's current expense and what the maximum tax rate would be; and that
it would have to be appropriated to the school districts within a specified time frame. What I was not
quite sure of is to what extent the school boards and the Commissioners would need to agree, if at all,
on what that money would be used for, besides the general title of capital and current expense.
Geof Gledhill: If the Board of County Commissioners on its own initiative calls the referendum,
the statutes do provide some ability on the part of the County Commissioners to direct where the money
would be spent in the ballot question. I think I would want to look at that more carefully before giving
you an opinion as to how much flexibility there is in that area. That is a nuance that I did not spend a lot
of time on. But I know that in the enabling legislation far calling these referendums, there is same
discretion provided for the group calling for the election and directing where that money goes. There
was something else that you said that prompted me to want to comment.
Chair Jacobs: Time limit. She asked about time.
Commissioner Gordon: I do not remember stating it exactly that way. It said that within a
certain number of days after the close of the month, the money had to be remitted to the school system.
And that is a little different from the way we appropriate money. Essentially, what I was interested in
asking had to do with haw general it was versus haw specific, and what kind of discretion the Board of
County Commissioners had, and how it might be used. There were a lot of different things you went
through that had to do with the County Commissioner initiative. I was just trying to make sure that
understood that as distinguished from all the other initiatives, which seemed to have many mare
limitations than the County Commissioner initiated countywide supplemental tax.
Geof Gledhill: That surprised me as well. Let me answer that question further than I have, but
let me also make the point that a supplemental tax is not a County appropriation. Once the County
Commissioners set the tax rate, the money belongs to the schools and it is not an appropriation like the
annual current expense appropriation ar the annual capital appropriation from the County
Commissioners. And what that means is that the money is turned over as we speak with respect to the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system district tax as it is collected. And you have seen that some in the
different way in which fund balances are presented to you in order to accommodate that different way in
which the money comes to the school systems. On the other hand, the County's current expense
appropriation comes to the school systems monthly, in 12 monthly increments, to help them in their fund
balance work and in their need for the same amount of money, generally speaking, each month.
Commissioner Gordon: The last thing is that it would have to be appropriated per pupil, per
average daily membership and so forth, collected countywide and then distributed per pupil.
Geof Gledhill: That is exactly right. If the County Commissioners are interested in me providing
you more information on how finely you can draw the ballot question, then I would be glad to look at
that, but I have not spent time with that in this work.
There is one other important nuance between a County Commissioner initiated supplemental tax
and one that results from an initiative from the Boards of Education, and that is the North Carolina law
provides that where the countywide supplemental tax is initiated by the Boards of Education, a
successful election results in any other district supplemental tax going away as a result of the election.
And in fact the ballot must say that. There is no similar provision in a county initiated countywide
supplemental tax election, for example. So that if the election for a supplemental tax countywide was
initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district tax could
remain in place. I guessed at why that might be in a letter that I wrote to you, but I really do not know
why that is the case.
Chair Jacobs: How would the Board like to proceed? As far as I know, no member of the
public has signed up to speak, but that does not mean that people will not want to be recognized to
speak. Would you like to discuss the items on the agenda and then solicit public comment, or have
public comment now?
Commissioner Carey: Let's discuss the items on the agenda first.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to mention that I had faxed to the Commissioners last
night an augmented proposal. As you remember, four Commissioners presented proposals, and the
details of the proposal that I presented remain the same. I did fax this to the Commissioners and then I
passed it out tonight, and it is almost the same as the proposal that I faxed last night, except that I
corrected a couple of typing mistakes. It gives the rationale behind the proposal and also it discusses
how my proposal fits in with the issue of possible merger. The main thing I wanted to mention was that
there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the funding equity part of my proposal included.
And what I wanted to stress was that the Commissioners are going to have to decide the ultimate
maximum level to tax, and the voters would have to approve it. But if that happened, the tax would be
available as soon as possible, and that means July 1, 2004. And when I studied these issues, I thought
it was very important that the money should be available to the Orange County system as soon as
possible. My proposal seemed to be misunderstood in the sense of what kind of effect it would
eventually have. My thought would be that if we could all agree that the County supplemental tax would
be put to a vote, and there is work to be done on that, that we would have a permanent targeted tax,
and it would specifically provide money to the Orange County school system as soon as possible, again,
July 1, 2004. The other thing I wanted to mention was if the Commissioners and the voters agreed, the
amount of tax levied could increase in subsequent years until the funding disparity was reduced or even
eliminated. I think the proposal was misunderstood in thinking that there would be a certain cap. My
proposal had to do with getting money to the Orange County school system in July 1, 2004, and then
the voters and the Commissioners could agree. But the funding disparity could be reduced or even
eliminated using this approach, and that was something that people in the public hearing did not seem
understand. I just wanted to clarify that issue.
Chair Jacobs: Let me suggest that in the interest of having some order to the conversation, we
have the agenda abstract set out with specific topics in an order that the Chair and Vice-Chair worked
out with staff. If it pleases the Board, I would suggest we go in that order. The first has to do with
collaboration. As staff notes, it was part of virtually every proposal.
Commissioner Carey: With one exception. I don't see my proposal on here. I see the three.
John Link: It is referred to as next steps on page four of the abstract.
Chair Jacobs: When I said virtually, I consider merger the ultimate collaboration. So if you
want to speak to collaboration in terms of merger, you are certainly welcome.
Commissioner Carey: Well, you are right, it is the ultimate collaboration. And I think it would
be one that I think has the only chance of working. I can wait until the other discussions about
collaborations are held tonight. The amendment I would like to make in my proposal is not necessarily
inconsistent with collaboration, or what I think might be developing in terms of collaboration. So I can
wait.
Chair Jacobs: Other comments on collaborative efforts?
Commissioner Brawn: I think it has been an initiative of the Commissioners for many, many
years now. It certainly dates back to my first years on the Board. We haven't been good at asking
either school board to initiate discussions on haw they can share resources and a list of things that I
think would be very beneficial. And to bring it up, how can we do something that will perhaps generate
a stronger commitment by both school systems to that. And there was somewhere in our last proposal
to hire Mr. Boyle from the Institute of Government, but he is leaving the Institute of Government and
there does not seem to be anyone left there that would want to do it. So we could move on to another
format, which I see the collaboration issue as kind of breaking down into two or three ways we could
work on it simultaneously. There was the issue of Mr. Boyle just getting a structure of communication
and working on that. Unfortunately, it didn't include all of the members of the boards of education and
us. It only included six or seven people that were going to be involved in that process, which I don't
think would be very fruitful. We need to have much fuller efforts to develop this process. I think it's
been mentioned that the Dispute Settlement Center could offer up someone. And I think it would be
very wise to do that in a public format so people could come in and watch the process and be invited
there. I'd certainly be interested in looking at the previous outline far that and maybe going through it
and editing it a bit and seeing if some of it is still valid.
We have also had a proposal to have a citizens' task force to look at school operations and be
involved in helping that collaboration and/or coming up with data. There are parents and citizens at both
school systems and I think that in a timeframe that would be excellent too. I don't want to leave out
anything here. And then I made the proposal that we work with the School of Education to have them
look at both school systems, and have them do an educational resource paper for us, or a report, and
look at both of our systems. And I feel very strongly that I don't really understand how both of our
systems operate, what they offer and don't offer to the children of Orange County, what their needs are,
and I know that both systems have needs. We see that at budget time every year. And to just do a
simple, straightforward analysis of what our two school systems look like and do some
recommendations that they as professionals at the University could bring forward with some positive,
creative proposals that everyone could look at in the County. And also to see what they have across
the country that they know of that has worked; that's practical; that's cost efficient for sharing resources
in each district; for creating opportunities on how those resources can be shared, and really looking out
into the future of what the County Commissioners and the school boards can try to achieve to offer
better education to all of our children in both districts. That would help me a lot to get a solid basis of
information that everyone could take a look at. And then hopefully that group can also offer their
expertise in suggesting some real creative solution that we don't really see right now.
Chair Jacobs: Understanding that that's an offshoot of collaboration. If I can just bring us back
to collaboration, and then we'll talk about that group.
Commissioner Brown: That's what I meant. This information would be a piece of the
collaboration discussion.
Chair Jacobs: Is there anyone else who wants to say anything about collaboration at this
paint?
Commissioner Halkiotis: I think we should recognize that there were some issues with the
whole topic of collaboration over the last couple of years. When you, Mr. Chair, brought this up initially
and began the use of that term. One of the things that I heard quite a bit back then was the fact that
same people immediately didn't like the idea of collaboration because the proposal that had come dawn
at the time involving our own staff had, with all due respect to Professor Boyle, but there were people
complaining that he had children in one school system and couldn't be objective to the other school
system. So I think we need to look at any and all concerns. I've never met the man, but I heard that
coming from some circles. So we need to go back and review all the concerns that people had from
both school systems with respect to what does collaboration mean. I remember somebody jumping up
one night at somebody who is no longer on the Board and saying, collaboration is another word for
merger. That was a very telling moment. So spend a little time now, if we're going to actively pursue
this as part of the component of the total undertaking. Ga back and look at where the concerns were
raised over the last year and a half. There's no reason to go fall into the same pit all over again when
you can map it out and avoid it on round two. So I would put that out there as a suggestion -staff revisit
concerns that have been expressed over the last year and a half and look at avoiding those same
issues all over again. It wastes time. And I think we can go back over and over the same stuff again
and there's no reason to do that.
Commissioner Brown: Could you give an example of what might have transpired over the last
year and a half?
Commissioner Halkiotis: I was just mentioning that I had heard in some circles that some
people felt the deck was stacked by having Phil Boyle be the facilitator for collaboration because he had
children at that time in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system. But what I'm saying is you eliminate that
argument from any side by having somebody come in who has no affiliation with either school system to
act as a facilitator. And when you mentioned the Dispute Settlement Center, I keep on thinking of the
wonderful work that Andy Sachs has done over the years. And we've used him in County government
for a number of undertakings, and very successfully. So that's all I'm proposing -avoid the mistakes of
the past if that's the road we're going to go down.
Chair Jacobs: I have spoken with Andy Sachs, and he is willing to undertake this project. I had
made a proposal working with Commissioner Brown on some possible areas of collaboration, and what I
would like to suggest is that we take this Attachment 5, the original memorandum of understanding
about collaboration, we give it to Mr. Sachs and to the two school boards, and we send them forth with a
timeline and with some areas that we've identified that we're interested in at least finding out if they may
be fruitful for collaboration. Then ask them to come back to us by the first of June with a report on what
they think they can do together and what they can't do together. And perhaps the first item on their
agenda should be to define what collaboration might be and to respond to this memorandum of
understanding, which was developed with Mr. Boyle, which the two school boards did endorse, and that
we offer that the two school boards and the County Commissioners jointly pay whatever nominal
amount of money that the Dispute Settlement Center would charge as a way of saying, "We're all in this
together". But I personally don't want to be involved in those discussions and don't think that County
Commissioners should be involved in those discussions. I think that there's nothing wrong with our
suggesting areas that we think, based on having listened to the public and listened to the school boards,
might be fruitful areas for the school boards to discuss. I read in the papers that some school board
members thought that we were exceeding our statutory authority to even have the audacity to suggest
certain areas to discuss. And I note in the memo that we got from the attorney that the Orange County
Commissioners have historically not exercised some of their statutory authority to mare closely regulate
what the schools do. We're trying to be collaborative. I see this as an opportunity to say, "Go forth and
do good things. We support you. Here are some ideas that we have." So, Mr. Sachs is excited about
doing that. He was working this evening with the Richmond Hills community in Efland, or he said he
would be here. And I would suggest that that would be a good way to at least get those discussions off
the ground as one aspect of what this Board, I believe, would like, which is more cooperation and more
information.
Commissioner Gordon: I could certainly support that approach. It's very similar to what I had
suggested. I guess the only thing that I would add is that we ought to bring it back on our agenda for a
formal charge and a formal procedure. Over the holiday break, I think I would like to see them take our
ideas and bring it back to our agenda as well as sending it forth to the school boards and to Mr. Sachs
for a formal charge and a formal process as soon as we can in January.
Commissioner Halkiotis: The only other thing I wanted to mention on that is, to save Mr.
Sachs a whole lot of time, I think it's really important far the Manager and his staff to sit down and give
Mr. Sachs a prep session on everything that has gone before here. I don't want to see a study come
back, and I can speak to this with some experience, telling us that both school systems have been
collaborating in transportation. The only reason that both school systems have been collaborating in
transportation is because the way the State funnels the money down to them. They decide to funnel it
through one allocation source, and that's it. It was not decided upon by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
schools and the Orange County school boards. It was a State decision, and that's the way it is. Deal
with it. And it's worked very well, there's a pretty seamless operation going on in school bus
transportation because there aren't any politics involved in it. It just happens because you have to work
with it. That's how the State gives you the money, and they tell you to go out and do it. And if you don't
spend it right, they'll be all over you. That's the kind of straightforwardness and honesty we need to
have in this thing and not end up with something that's going to be a bunch of mystical words and
balloons floating around with little strings dangling from them.
Commissioner Brawn: I would like to see us creating an environment that the two school
boards could work together in. It doesn't direct anything specifically to cover, but just how people need
to trust and share and develop commonalities instead of differences. It's good thinking, it's a good way
to approach this very serious discussion. I'm in favor of it.
Chair Jacobs: And we have forwarded a lot of these documents, including the one that
Commissioner Brawn just mentioned to Mr. Sachs so that he could familiarize himself. What I'm hearing
is that we would like to have staff work with the two school boards to develop a charge, to hire Mr.
Sachs, to state a timeline to work on issues of collaboration, which is part of the charge that could be
identified. Is that a fair summary? And that we'd like to have that come back to us in January.
The Board agreed with this.
John Link: We'll be glad to certainly pursue that. My recommendation is that the Board
confirms that we pursue tangible and quantifiable areas of collaboration. For instance, can the two
school systems and the County collaborate, or having them agree on addressing issues such as how
we pursue budgeting here in Orange County between the two school systems or among the two school
systems? Can we talk about what programming is now on par between the two school systems? With
all due respect to our memorandum of understanding that we've been focusing on in the past, there are
a lot of issues that have to be addressed, but I'm looking to Andy Sachs to address conflicting values
and conflicting beliefs, and talking about commitment. I mean, if you don't' come to the table, you're not
committed. I would rather us have some tangible areas that we can say we're going to collaborate on,
whatever the term is you're going to use. And they're real items -it's the budget, it's programming, it's
how you work together on co-location of certain functions. Is that the areas that the Board wants us to
pursue? Because I'm trying to be as definitive as possible.
Chair Jacobs: Yes. We've given some examples, but you've just given some other kinds of
examples. Perhaps we can finally resolve the issue of what is a mandate.
Jahn Link: That's why I brought up the subject of budgeting. I would like to refer to the red
sheet, which is the item that was described by the County Attorney. We as County Managers,
Superintendents, and County Commissioners are instructed in this process when we go to the Institute
of Government. So we all know what we could da in terms of pursuing funding by projector by program.
There has been no county in this State that has been successful in pursuing that in terms of having a
positive outcome between the school boards and the County Commissioners. It usually results in
acrimonious outcomes, and it's not productive. However, when school boards andtor we are shouting
over the bow, saying, "This will happen or that might happen", that's not productive either. So when we
talk about the budget process, can we finally agree and collaborate on what we mean by mandates?
Can we finally agree and collaborate on what we mean by expansion items in the budget? And can we
finally agree on the fact that the County Commissioners don't fund Spanish teachers? However, when
everyone comes to a County Commission public hearing, and they say, "You haven't funded Spanish
teachers, Commissioners." I can speak only as the Manager, and it makes me want to fund Spanish
teachers by line item. We're in that paradigm where that's the process in which we work with the budget
proposals and presentations. Can Orange County do a better jab than we're doing in that kind of
process? So those are the kind of things I'd like to bring to the school superintendents, and hopefully
we can come back with something tangible that we can all agree as a body of work to collaborate on.
Chair Jacobs: And we would ask you to invite Mr. Sachs to some of those meetings, even if we
have not officially hired him.
Commissioner Carey: Are we finished with the discussion on collaboration?
Chair Jacobs: Yes.
Commissioner Carey: Like I said earlier, the amendment that I would like to make to my
proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with collaboration, because I've been a supporter of
collaboration for many years. It just has not worked to the extent that I'd like to see it work and think it
should work. And if the process that we have just charted a course for works, that's fine, and it may be
needed. One of the scenarios that I plan to ask the Board to consider tonight, and I haven't given up,
and I want the public to know that I haven't given up, on my goal of trying to move this County in the
direction of merging the two school systems so that we can not only benefit from the ultimate
collaboration, but also have potential in the future of saving some money on school capital construction
that we will need to save in order to address important capital needs in the future. I think that's very
important, and I think that merger is the only way we're going to achieve that goal. As long as we've got
two separate school systems that are unequally funded, we're not going to achieve that goal. Sa what
I'm going to ask the Board to do tonight is to consider this proposal. (He distributed the proposal to the
County Commissioners and staff and offered it to the public). It is clear to me that there is common
ground on same things that we've addressed in the context of merger, in this discussion of merger and
equal funding. The one thing that there is clear, common ground on, and I coined that phrase from one
of the members in the audience here tonight, the common ground that everybody was encouraging us to
find on this issue of equal funding and merger. But that common ground is associated with the fact that
everybody agrees that the school systems are unequally funded and the funding scenario is inequitable
between the two, and that we need to address providing additional funds for the County school system
children immediately. We need to fix that, and we have it within our power to fix that immediately. The
other thing that I've heard people say is that they think that this issue is too important far Commissioners
alone to be deciding, that they want the public to decide it. And although I've come a long way too since
we've discussed this, I really wanted the Commissioners to decide the issue of merger and move in the
direction of merger, but it's clear to me after discussion on the 11th and after the discussion tonight, that
this Board is not ready to make that decision, and I respect this Board's decision on that, and this
Board's position on that. In view of the fact that this Board is not ready, though it may be at some future
date. I think it's incumbent upon us to begin now to provide a clear direction for the public on where we
ought to go, and I think the public, to some extent, is ahead of us on this. At least that's what I'm
sensing. And although it makes me nervous to put this proposal forward because we may still end up
with two school systems if the public decides to go that route, I don't think the public will decide to go
that route, because I think that the public has come along far enough now to recognize that it is going to
be in all of our best interests to have a merged school system sooner rather than later.
Consequently, I'm asking this Board to consider putting a referendum forward in the primaries in
May of next year to ask the public to vote on adopting a countywide supplemental school tax, or voting
on merging the two school systems. What that means is that the status quo is unacceptable because
that's what the people have told us, the status quo is unacceptable, and that many people would prefer
to have the public decide this issue rather than the County Commissioners. In any event, it will provide
some additional funds for the County school system immediately, beginning next year hopefully. And it
would also indicate whether there was enough public support far merger for us to move forward with
that. And I recognize that if the public chose merger in the vote next May, or whenever the primary is
held, it's not necessarily a binding decision for the Commissioners. But I think that if the public chose it,
this Board would be required, which we would require ourselves, we would decide in advance that we
are going to pursue implementation of that public non-binding decision. And, as you can see from the
proposal that I've put forward, I had hoped that we could make the decision to move forward to merge
the systems by July 2006. But in view of the fact that we are not going to make the decision tonight or
in February, and then I think the July 2007 timeframe would be the only one that would be meaningful in
this context if the public decided that we should merge the systems. I'm asking the Board to consider
this option of giving the public the option of deciding to adopt a countywide supplemental tax, or merge
the systems. Now that's not inconsistent with the collaboration discussion we've just had, because if the
public decides that they want a countywide supplemental tax rather than to merge the systems, we will
need that collaboration. We will need the benefit of all the decisions that result from that process. And
if that process concludes itself in June, then we'll have something concrete to move forward with. But if
the public decides that merger is the best option and the most efficient and economical option far us to
move forward with, then we may still use some of the suggestions that come out of the collaboration
task force or collaboration discussion, but we will be able to move immediately to the ultimate
collaboration of merging the systems by July 1, 2007.
So I'm asking the Board to consider this whether we decide to put this forward to the public
tonight or at a subsequent meeting. I think that we'd have to make the decision in January in order to
get the issue clarified and on the ballot by May. Sa, I'm asking the Board to consider this tonight,
because I think this responds to what we've been hearing from the public in all of the public hearings,
and I might add that, in the three public hearings, while some people may perceive it to be
overwhelmingly anti-merger, 30°~ of the people in the first public hearing spoke in favor of merger, 40%
in the second, and 35% in the third. That's significant in my opinion. And I think that moving in this
direction and giving the public the option to make the decision would at least give a vision of when the
acrimony and the divisiveness might end an this issue.
Commissioner Gordon: Obviously, part of my proposal would agree with that. It will take a
little while for me to absorb what Commissioner Corey's proposal contains. I certainly think something
that would address the funding disparity between the two school systems as soon as possible has to be
seriously considered. What I said in my rationale leading up to the same proposal that I made on
November 11t", is that I didn't support merger, because I couldn't see arguments for merger beyond the
equality of funding, or the equity in funding or correcting the funding disparity. To me, arguments are
compelling to correct the funding disparity as soon as passible, and that's July 1, 2004. I feel that it's
crucial, and one of the things that Commissioner Corey's idea would do would be to address the funding
disparity as soon as possible. Also, it has the aspect of a vote, which I think is very good. I don't know
when the Board wants to decide about the supplemental tax. I detected at the other discussion that we
had, that the Board wanted to mull things over a little bit more. But I do feel that something to address
the funding disparity has to be done as soon as possible. I don't think we can let that continue. I just
don't see that merger is necessary. I just see that collaboration and especially correcting the funding
disparity is absolutely necessary. So let me think about your proposal, because it has a lot of elements
that I would support in terms of how you stated it.
Commissioner Brawn: The clarification on this and an both of your proposals would be
important about a district tax or supplemental tax. It is the same thing, if I'm not wrong. And what
you've both proposed is just a slight variation of beginning that process of reducing the Chapel Hill
district tax and implementing a countywide tax for schools. But I do want to clarify one issue, and I think
Commissioner Carey mentioned it at the bottom here, that putting in Commissioner Gordan's proposal
does not truly tell us the details of how much money would be raised for the Orange County system and
also the Chapel Hill system. This would have to be done in a per pupil way. And so we talk about
immediate monies to alleviate the Orange County system's budget issues, but we also need to know
how much money the Orange County system would get. And I have not seen any figures that represent
that. But proportionally, John, maybe you could just comment on afour-cent increase for Orange
County, what would be the equivalent amount increase for Chapel Hill?
Jahn Link: I think Rod Visser, who helped develop these charts that we presented during our
report of September 15`", may recall what the mathematical breakdown is between the two systems.
But obviously when the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro system had 10,000-11,000 students to the Orange County
system who has 7,000, then proportionally on a per pupil basis, of course, the Chapel Hill system
receives more money of every dollar than you can credit to the Orange County system. We can
certainly come back with more detail charting of examples of how a countywide district tax would work.
We'd be glad to do that. We'd be glad to research, along with the attorney, how Commissioner Corey's
proposal would work from a legal perspective. I don't know whether that would take special legislation
to pursue, or if it's something that is provided far right now in terms of the election process.
Rod Visser: I think John has got the right idea. We can bring back a table that would show for
various levels of a supplemental tax countywide, how much of that would go to Chapel Hill-Carrboro,
and how much of that would go to Orange County. But it's basically a 62-3$ split thereabouts, based on
the different student populations.
Commissioner Brown: So, if you did this, as Commissioner Gordon suggests, you'd give a
fairly large sum also to the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro system.
Rod Visser: Right now we're just under $1 million per penny that comes on the tax rate. So, for
four cents, let's say, for argument's sake, it's $4 million that would come from that. Sixty-two percent of
that, which is $2.5 million, would go to the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro system and $1.5 million to the Orange
County system.
Commissioner Brawn: I feel like we need to be very scrupulous when we speak of addressing
the Orange County financial issues, and also saying that we are in this dilemma of funding an a per
pupil basis, and that would also give Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools an extra $2.5 million that they have
not expressed any need for. I think that needs to be really clearly always shown in both ways.
Commissioner Carey: Can I comment on that just for a point of clarification?
Commissioner Brown: You talk about maintaining and increasing funds for the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro system.
Commissioner Carey: Well, I think that as a point of fact, this Board has not held either one of
the school systems' budget stable in any year that I've been on this Baard in the last 19 years, and I
think that regardless of what we do, whether we merge them or whether we implement a countywide
district tax, the funding far bath systems, whether it's one or two systems, is going to continue to go up
because that's our culture; that's what we do. We've got two excellent school systems, so it's going to
continue to go up. And I expect that it will. We still have the authority to decide how much it goes up.
In either one of the scenarios that I put forward with respect to a countywide supplemental tax, my vision
is that if we implement a countywide supplemental tax, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schaol district tax would
start to go down. It's our decision on how fast we phase it out. But I know that there are some people
who think that it should never be phased out, even if we adopt a countywide supplemental tax. But we'll
have to deal with that. If we merge the systems, we won't have to worry about these different taxes,
we'll only have one tax; one tax to levy. I would prefer that because that means that we would levy one
tax and phase out the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district tax over the term of years. I n this scenario, it
would be between now and 2007. So I think that we're going to give the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schaol
system more money regardless of what we do, and I think we ought to just recognize that fact.
Commissioner Halkiotis: Well, a couple of observations. Qn the surface, I think once again
Commissioner Carey has brought forth an interesting proposal. You seem to do this in increments of 10
months. On the surface, I think it's really intriguing. But I think we need to have the staff, the Manager,
and the Attorney look at this thing in every possible way, to do the kind of analysis, Geof, that you did
this evening. This is the first time in all the years I've been on the Board that we've had explained to us
what the statutes say we could do if we wanted to strictly manage school expenditures. And I don't
want to get into the micromanagement of school budgets. That's the last thing I'm interested in doing.
However, if it's a legal option we have, I think we need to knave all the legal options we have. I think
Commissioner Carey has captured very carefully the sentiment of people on both sides of the issue
through all of these hours and hours of public hearings that we've had. You've captured that spirit. But
I've also learned over the years that our Attorney has an amazing ability, tonight was the first time I've
ever heard him say that it was his opinion on something, that you really couldn't base it in legalese. I
found that intriguing, you're starting to worry me when you say things like that. But I think,
Commissioners, this leads very interestingly into the next two units we're looking at, the school
efficiency study. It says very clearly, "The Board of Commissioners has discussed the desirability of
providing assurance to the public and the Commissioners that County appropriations far public
education are being well and efficiently expended, particularly before any commitments are made to
providing additional financial resources to the schools for a potential merger, supplemental district tax,
or the like." I think if we're going to give some credence, and I'm willing to give this my initial, "I like
this." But I want it coupled very closely to the school efficiency study to guarantee the public that we're
optimizing opportunities for expenditures to the maximum, and also have a common terminology. I don't
want to spend six months having a debate over, "Is this a district tax? Is this a supplemental tax? What
kind of tax is this?" We're the ones who have the opportunity to define exactly what this creature is that
we're helping give birth to here. So, an the surface, I want to say to Commissioner Carey that I like what
you've got here, but I think we need to have all the analysis we can get from our own staff on what's
involved here. Assuming there's a primary in May, which is a big assumption right now based on
whichever superior court judge is going to rule on the latest redistricting proposal from the legislature.
There may not be a primary in May. There may be one in June, July, August, or, as we know what
happened a year and a half ago, some other month.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to clarify what I was trying to articulate before. It is
written down here in the proposal that what you do is that you set the countywide supplemental tax
that's been approved by the voters. Then you look at 2b an the Steps Toward Funding Equity in my
proposal. Then you adjust the city tax rate downward to compensate for the increase in the countywide
tax increase. The only thing I said, and this gets at Commissioner Corey's point that perhaps there
would be an increase in funding to the Chapel Hill schools, is that the schools would be held harmless,
not just in the narrow sense, but the total funding to the district would increase as appropriate to address
demonstrated unmet needs. So if you set a countywide supplemental tax at the four cents, you would
be giving $1.5 million more to the Orange County schools. You would lower the district tax. Maybe not
so much that you would wipe out the entire amount that might accrue. But you would basically not be
giving much, if any, increase to the Chapel Hill schools through this mechanism. So that the 62-38 split
that John Link was talking about does raise (with the four cents, if we levy that the first year) $1.5 million
that goes to the Orange County schools. We'd have to figure out what would go to the Chapel Hill
schools, but they certainly wouldn't get $2.5 million out of this, because we would lower the district tax
rate in a manner which accommodated the unmet needs of the Chapel Hill schools, but they wouldn't
get the whole $2.5 million. I think Commissioner Carey has said, and I have said, that it's not this huge
windfall for the Chapel Hill schools; what it is, is a lot of money for the Orange County schools.
Remember, that's a huge tax increase for the Orange County schools, which is one reason I would like
to have a vote. If we did that in July 1, 2Q03, it would be 20.8 cents. The reason this doesn't cost
Chapel Hill a lot of extra money is because you've decreased the district tax in Chapel Hill as you've
increased the tax in Orange County. But I would add the caveat that you make sure you meet Chapel
Hill's unmet needs as you adjust these two taxes. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly, but
it's not a mechanism to give Chapel Hill more money, it's a mechanism to correct the funding disparity
so that Orange County school system would get more money soon.
Chair Jacobs: First, I will not support having this on the ballot in May. I would consider having
it on the ballot in November. I don't think we're going to have a primary in May, and as I've said before,
and I think I just heard Commissioner Halkiotis say, there's more information that I need before I'm
going to go to the voters, including myself, and say, "Raise taxes on yourself," I want to know that the
$44.7 million in operating funds are being spent in an efficient and effective manner. I think that's only
reasonable. And I think that we have outlined here some other ways to proceed that will give us
information. We've had a lot of members of the public come to us and say, "I have these questions. I
have these concerns." And with all due respect, your original proposal was to merge the schools and
then work out the details. I still think that's what this is. This is, "Let's act without necessarily knowing
all the details." Maybe I'm just more conservative or mare cautious. But I think it's important to be able
to have the school systems have these conversations about collaboration, have a group of independent
educational experts look at what we have, and have an independent expert look at how money is being
spent before we go to voters and say, "These are your two options." I tend to support the idea of these
two options going to the voters, and as I had said previously, I think that a countywide supplemental tax
should go to the voters. Whether these are the two options, the only two options we should take to
voters, perhaps they are. With the uncertainty about a primary and with the lack of information, I would
not support this even though whatever we do may be ultimately divisive among same people, the more
information we provide people, I have faith that people in the community are willing to listen, willing to
evaluate, willing to digest, and then reach a conclusion if you treat them with the respect that we like to
be treated. The way I would like to be treated as a taxpayer is to get this information before somebody
asks me to make a decision. So that's my reaction. C2ualified endorsement, but I still think that we have
a process that I would like to see us pursue.
Commissioner Brown: I'm going to just totally agree with you. I think everyone has brought up
here pieces of everything we need to do. It's time that we need to do them. However, Commissioner
Carey, I don't disagree with your stand on merger at all, but I really need to put out there for our citizens
some vision of what a merged system would look like. That kind of falls into what Chair Jacobs was
saying. That to me is just something that everyone needs to see. They need to have a basis for
supporting it. And without the data and the information both on the tax issue, and on trying to look at the
collaboration, and trying to develop creative information on what a new system could look like, I just
can't move ahead until we have that. And that to me is just the bottom line of it. I just don't want to run
over the voters. They need to have same confidence in what is going to take place in the future if we go
towards merger.
Commissioner Carey: Let me be clear here, because you're bath characterizing me as being
precipitous and wanting to rush to a decision on merger, when that's not necessarily the case. But
think we need to move in that direction. I submit that you have to make a decision that you're going to
merge before you can develop a clear picture of what a merged system would look like. You can't
develop that picture unless you've made the decision to merge. Anything you do prior to making the
decision to merge and getting a group of citizens to work on a proposed merger plan is sheer
speculation, and that's folly. That's misleading the public because you're encouraging them to rely on
something that has no basis in fact, because it's sheer speculation. It's like saying that we're going to
have 1,600 students redistricted and bussed. That's sheer speculation. And it's unfair to put the
speculation out there and invoke fears in the public when you really can't determine what a merged
system is going to look like until you make the decision to merge and then get a group of citizens who
know more about education than we do to come up with a merger plan. And until you've gat a merger
plan, you cannot present a clear picture to the public. You want to put the cart before the horse. I want
to put the horse where it needs to be. And we're the ones who are driving this train, and we need to
take the leadership to do so. And if we don't take the leadership to do so, it's not going to happen. I've
stated my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
But if we do decide to go in this direction and put something on the ballot, and I don't know when
the election is going to occur, nobody does, but I think we need to decide to do so in January. Now this
Board can decide to put this option on the ballot in January, or we can decide to not do it. I think we
should do it. Commissioner Gordon has stated that we needed to have a referendum on merger; she
was the first one who stated that we needed to have a referendum on the countywide supplemental tax.
So she can't say, "I don't want to da either one." And I've heard other Commissioners say they support
variations on this theme of a public vote on a tax. Let the public decide, the public is ahead of us on
this. Let the public decide.
Commissioner Halkiotis: I have a suggestion to move us along, because it's 10:00. We could
be here for a couple of weeks debating this. I'd like to suggest we go ahead and empower the Manager
to look at his proposal and get us the information as quickly as possible and schedule it for our January
retreat. Anything else we do right now, we're just going to present five different opinions up here, and
that's going to be it.
Commissioner Brawn: I think that's great. You definitely have to have that data.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to support something that Commissioner Jacobs said in
that I do think that it makes sense to get your facts and figures to make sure that people are educated.
It is kind of uncharacteristic "Gordonian" form suggesting that we move forward for this. The reason is
because I've been persuaded that the need is so great in the Orange County school system to do
something. But if it's the pleasure of the Commissioners to get the data about why these two school
systems need this money, fine. I just have been persuaded that the Orange County school system
needs the money, and that's why I proposed what I did. But if it's the pleasure of the Commissioners to
get data to educate the public, to do efficiency studies or whatever we need to do to make sure that the
Orange County system is using their money efficiently and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system is using
their money efficiently, then I could go along with that. I just think that we need to get money to the
Orange County school system. If we can do it sooner rather than later, that was my point.
Chair Jacobs: And if the sense of the Board is we'll come back to this in late January when we
reconvene, that's fine with me, but I would just reiterate that that makes it even less likely that I would
support an early decision because we're going to lose almost two months in gathering any information.
And I think we need information for ourselves and for the public.
Commissioner Gordon: What kind of information do you need?
Chair Jacobs: The efficiency study.
Commissioner Brown: Are we going to then accommodate all of our proposals and get back
information that we need from John Link and move ahead?
Commissioner Gordon: I think that we should have all of our proposals looked at.
Chair Jacobs: If that's the sense of the Board.
Commissioner Brawn: Then we will bring all of them to our annual retreat in January. Is that
correct?
Chair Jacobs: We'll either put it on the regular agenda or the retreat. One or the other, but as
soon as we can.
Jahn Link: We would rely on the Board, at that point in time, to get further instruction or have
further discussion on your education excellence evaluation group, because basically you're at the paint
of talking about a charge and the composition of that element. But we'll be happy to come back by your
retreat ar by the first meeting in January and try to give you further detail an what specific areas other
studies have probed into as it relates to efficiency and try to give you some further ideas as to what the
potential casts would be in this County. We won't be going out for proposals, of course, by that time,
but I think we can give you some further detailed information.
Commissioner Gordon: I thought that was part of what we wanted to do.
Commissioner Halkiotis: I just wanted to put a caution out there because some of the
companies that we've seen some of their PR work and materials they put out, it's a slash and burn
approach. They come in and tell you to lower your thermostats 20 degrees so everybody's freezing,
raise them 20 degrees in the summer so everybody's dying of perspiration, fire 20 people, cut back this,
cut back that. I don't think that's what I'm interested in. I'm looking for something creative, something
that's going to blend in with collaboration that we talked about, something that's going to blend in with
ca-location. Some of those other things have been quick fixers, "Give me my Commission money and
I'm out of here, and you guys go wrestle with the after effects." I'm not interested in that.
Commissioner Jacobs: And if I might just suggest, if you're going to flesh out specifically the
efficiency study passibility, to confer with the two school systems and their staffs to get an idea of areas
that they might be interested in getting more information about, or what kind of timeline they can see
working with someone, understanding that if we're going to try and use this information to make a
decision that we have to have an aggressive schedule.
Commissioner Brown: And I could give you a specific that I'd be interested in for both
systems. When they decide that they'd like to do a program that's going to cast a certain amount of
money, I'd like to know how those programs actually perform. What are the results? What do we see
far our money? And I knave we've invested in several programs that are supposed to address the needs
of disadvantaged students or lower achieving students, but I've really never seen how these programs
actually bring forth results. Then that money gets refunded, and refunded, and refunded, and I don't
even know if the programs exist anymore. So that's one piece I'd like to know.
A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE FUNDING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY AND
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
AND THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE MERGER
Alice Gordon -December 9, 2003
After listening to discussions of the possible merger of the two school districts, I believe that
compelling reasons have been offered to address the funding disparity between the two districts. The
difference should at least be reduced or even totally eliminated.
To eliminate the funding disparity, taxes in the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro City School (CHCCS) district
might go up a little. However, in the Orange County School {OCS) district, there would be a huge tax
increase in comparison to the usual tax increases. This past year, for example, taxes went up 1.5 cents per
$100 valuation. If the funding disparity had been entirely eliminated on July 1, 2003, countywide property
taxes would have risen 20.8 cents per $100 valuation. That means the owner of a $200,000 house would
have paid $416 more per year if the tax had been assessed all at once. Of course the more likely event
would be that a countywide tax increase would be phased in aver a period of years, while the CHCCS
district tax would be reduced proportionately. It should be noted that the CHCCS district tax does not
decrease the amount of funding allocated to the OCS. Each year the county allocates the same amount per
pupil to both school districts and then the CHCCS district receives additional money from the supplemental
district tax.
Right now it appears that the majority of people in the OCS district would not want to pay
significantly higher taxes than they are already paying. For example, the results of the November 2001
bond referendum showed that people in the CHCCS district voted 2 to 1 in favor of the bonds, while people
in the OCS district voted 2 to 1 against. It would appear that a major obstacle to raising taxes in the OCS
district is that a majority in that district would be opposed. However, in a merged system, a majority of
people in the entire county might be in favor.
The major reason for merger seems to be achieving equity in funding for the two school systems, a
result that would require a huge tax increase in the OCS district. Moreover, there are significant tasks
besides increasing OCS funding that must be completed in any merger plan, including decisions an the
composition and election of a new school board.
Therefore I support addressing the funding disparity, but I do not support merger. I also support
voluntary collaboration between the two school districts to enhance educational programs and services.
Before merger is contemplated, we need analyses of what is best for the children and how both systems
would improve in a larger district. Right now bath districts are among the best funded in the state and both
offer very good educational programs under local control. Let us assume we can correct the funding
disparity. Apart from the benefit to the OCS from increased funding, I am not aware of any studies or
demonstrations that there would be increased educational benefits to the two districts over and above
increased funding. That is why I believe there are compelling arguments for correcting the disparity, but not
compelling arguments for merger beyond the correction of the funding inequity.
The first part of the proposal that I made on November 11, 2003 included steps toward funding equity.
The benefit of these steps is that they would, if followed, provide for a countywide supplemental tax that
would allocate additional money to the OCS by July 1, 2004. The commissioners would need to decide
the ultimate maximum level of the tax, and the voters would have to approve it. The advantage of the
tax is that it is a permanent, targeted tax that would be approved by a vote of the people, and it would
specifically provide money to the OCS as soon as possible. If the commissioners and the voters
agreed, the amount of tax levied could increase in subsequent years until the funding disparity was
reduced or even eliminated.
The second part of my proposal included steps toward collaboration. These steps involve a
partnership of the school boards and the commissioners to achieve meaningful collaboration bath in the
short term and long term.
The details of my proposal are given below. The proposal is the same as the one presented on
November 11, 2003.
STEPS TOWARD FUNDING EQUITY
The commissioners should take the following steps to achieve funding equity between the two school
districts. (The date to take the step is given in parentheses.)
I. Decide to call an election to determine whether voters wish to implement a countywide supplemental tax
(ad valorem tax) for education. Instruct staff to bring back a report in January 2004 concerning the
recommended process for this vote. The process should include the elements listed below.
(November/December 2003}
A. After receiving the staff report, the commissioners will decide the maximum rate at which the tax
can be levied.
B. The vote on the tax will take place during the 2004 primary election (usually held on the first
Tuesday in May}.
C. The proceeds of the tax will be used to "operate schools of a higher standard."
D. Upon a favorable vote in May, the tax will take effect on July 1, 2004.*
II. If the countywide supplemental tax is approved by the voters, the commissioners will include the
following items in the county budget far FY 2004-2005.` (MaylJune 2004)
A. Set the countywide supplemental tax rate as appropriate to address demonstrated
unmet needs for the schools. It is recommended that the rate be set at 4 cents
per $100 of valuation. This will increase funding to the Orange County Schools
by approximately $1.5 million, which is about one-half of the amount that was
not funded in the FY 2003-2004 budget.
B. Adjust the city district tax rate downward to compensate for the increase in the countywide tax
rate. This adjustment will be made so that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools will not only be "held
harmless" in the narrow sense, but also so that the total funding to the district will increase as
appropriate to address demonstrated unmet needs.
III. The commissioners will formulate funding guidelines and priorities for the countywide supplemental tax.
Far example, the tax could be used for funding equity, to promote collaboration, and for other purposes to
allow the schools to operate at a higher standard. The commissioners will also define equity and identify
their intentions concerning the total tax increase that will be necessary to achieve funding equity between
the two school districts and the time period for that increase. (Spring 2004)
STEPS TOWARD COLLABORATION
I. The two school districts, in partnership with the commissioners, will agree to work with a facilitator to
identify concrete steps far collaboration. They will agree on the funding, the facilitator, and other aspects of
the collaboration study. (By February 2004)
II. The collaboration study will produce an interim report by May 2004, in time to initiate some meaningful
collaboration during the 2004-2005 school year if at all possible. The final report will recommend significant
collaboration that will take place during the 2005-2006 school near and beyond.
Proposed by Alice Gordon at the November 11, 2003 BOCC Work Session
*If action cannot be taken by this date, the tax will be implemented as soon as legally possible.
A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH
ORANGE COUNTY CHILD TO REACH HISJHER
FULL EDUCATIONAL POTENTIAL
PRESENTED BY
MOSES CAREY, JR.
DECEMBER 9, 2003
The Orange County Board of Commissioners should ask the voters to vote to select either a 1) Countywide
Supplemental Tax (ad valorem tax} for Education or 2) Merger of the two school systems during the
primary elections in 2004, which are normally held in May.
The options for the voters would be as follows. Voters may only vote for one of the following options:
Approve a Countywide Supplemental Tax for Education and give the Board of Commissioners
the authority to levy the tax annually up to a maximum of $.351$100 valuation. This vote would be
binding. If approved, the tax would be implemented in July 2004 or July 2005. If it is not
operationally possible to implement the tax in July 2004, the BOCC will proceed with the 2004105
budget to increase the county general ad valorem tax and reduce the CHC School District tax
proportionately to help fund schools in Orange County. This would provide some immediate
financial support for the county school system while maintaining or increasing funds far the CHC
school system.
2. Approve Merger of the two school systems in Orange County with a July 2007 Effective Date of
Merger. While an affirmative vote would be non-binding, the BOCC would commit in advance to
implementing the results of the vote by July 1, 2007. If the voters choose Merger, the CHC
School District tax would be phased out by July 1,2007 as the countywide general ad valorem tax is
increased to fund schools. The phase out of the CHC School District tax would begin in July 2004
with the adoption of the 2004/05 county budget. This would provide some immediate financial
support for the county school system while maintaining or increasing funds for the CHC School
system .
Chair Jacobs suggested addressing items 9-b, 9-c, 9-d, and 9-e.
Commissioner Brown wanted to adjourn at 10:30.
John Link said that the interim APS contract needs to be addressed tonight.
Commissioner Gordon said that 9-b could wait and 9-c should be addressed first.
a. Proposed Addenda to Interlocal Agreement on CHCCS High School #3
The Board considered approval of two addenda to the interlocal agreement that became effective on
August 7, 2003, regarding the planned third Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools {CHCCS) High School #3.
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer this item to the
CHCCS board for their recommendation and/or review and approval.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Interim Management and Operations Services Contract with the Animal Protection Society for
the Orange County Animal Shelter
The Board considered approving a contract negotiated by County staff with Animal Protection Society
{APS) to provide interim management and operations services for the Orange County Animal Shelter from
February 1, 2004 through June 30, 2004 in the amount of $44,470 per month, subject to final review by the
County Manager and County Attorney.
Jahn Link said that they have tried to address all points discussed in previous meetings regarding the
interim contract. This contract carries through June.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the
Manager's recommendation to approve a contract negotiated by County staff with Animal Protection Society
{APS) to provide interim management and operations services for the Orange County Animal Shelter from
February 1, 2004 through June 30, 2004 in the amount of $44,470 per month, subject to final review by the
County Manager and County Attorney.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Southern Orange Senior Center Planning Process
The Board considered outlining the planning, design, and construction process for the Southern Orange
Senior Center, including timeline; and to recommend planning committee structure and schedule
appointments to be made at the first Board meeting in 2004 {January 26).
Fred Schroeder distributed a handout. He is the past president of the Friends of the Chapel Hill Senior
Center. He expressed appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for their ongoing and present
support of issues important to seniors in Orange County. He presented the resolution. This is a unanimous
resolution by the board of the Friends, urging the County Commissioners to change the location of the
proposed new Southern Orange Senior Center to the northeast corner of this property. The previous plans,
which had anticipated collaboration with the University called for placement of the center on the
southwestern point. These plans are not going to come to fruition and they believe it is essential to move
forward with this center and that this location is the best one. It would permit separate parking and a
separate entrance and it would enhance safety. He recognized the members of the board in attendance
and asked them to stand. He pointed out that they were placed on the agenda for 7:30 p.m. by the staff.
He requested that in the future that there be an earlier placement in the agenda if possible.
Robert Seymour said that he has been involved since the Senior Center's inception and that
space has always been a problem for the Chapel Hill Senior Center. The center is hurting for lack of space
and they are witnessing a major population shift as more and more people move into their senior years.
They are disappointed that the University is not interested in working with them. He hopes that the Board of
County Commissioners will not wait. They need to move now on this building so that it will be ready by
June 2006. He said that wherever they are located they could still work with the University if the opportunity
presents itself. He said that it is important for the center to be visible, easy to find, accessible, and well-
defined parking. He said that it would be great to have this to be across the street from the Homestead
Park and the new proposed aquatics center. They would like to anticipate a facility of no less than 25,000
square feet.
John Link said that the Board needs to affirm the committee structure and begin to advertise for the
positions. Also, the activity timeline could be endorsed.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that they need to move on this tonight and that he is in support of the
resolution. He is tired of waiting on the University.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to endorse the
planning and design development process and endorse the recommended planning committee structure
and schedule appointments to be made at the first Board meeting in 2004 (January 26}.
Commissioner Brown said that she is not in favor of choosing the structure that they have in front of
them tonight because there needs to be someone from the Chapel Hill Town Council. She would also like
to see some people from the Northside Center and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen included.
Commissioner Brown suggested that they drop one of the advisors and asked what an advisor is.
Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that an advisor is a citizen that actually uses the center that
would be able to provide specific design input. There are planning program advisory committees for
Northside and Chapel Hill Center, who are users and involved heavily in center activities.
Commissioner Brown said to add Chapel Hill and Carrboro to this process and to cut down the number
of the Friends of the Senior Center members to two and to increase at-large numbers to four.
Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Gordon volunteered to serve on the committee.
This was agreeable to Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Carey to amend the motion as stated
above.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that they instruct staff to bring back a recommended charge for the
committee.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Soccer Superfund -Policy and Guidelines
The Board was to consider a draft policy and set of guidelines far use of the Soccer Superfund and
provide feedback and input to staff. The document would be brought back for action at a subsequent
meeting.
DEFERRED
f. Emergency Power Sources for County Buildings
The Board considered the need for and authorizing staff to take certain steps towards providing backup
power capabilities at key County facilities during electrical outages; and authorizing staff to retain the
services of an electrical engineer to design the wiring schematic for bath the Southern Human Services
Center and the Government Services Center, so that both buildings will be "generator ready"; and
authorizing staff to proceed with bidding both projects for Board award as expeditiously as practical; and
instructing staff to conduct a process to identify a consultant(s) for the Board to consider who would be
retained to investigate the feasibility and cost of using other "off the grid" systems to provide backup power
in other County buildings; and adopting the accompanying Emergency Power Capital Project Ordinance.
John Link said that they have money to have two buildings prepared for generators. The top priority
would be far the Southern Human Services Center and the second priority would be the Government
Services Center. In either case, they would not be recommending to buy the generators this year, but to get
the buildings wired.
A motion was made Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the
Manager's recommendation to authorize staff to retain the services of an electrical engineer to design the
wiring schematic for both the Southern Human Services Center and the Government Services Center, so
that both buildings will be "generator ready"' and authorize staff to proceed with bidding both projects for
Board award as expeditiously as practicable; and instruct staff to conduct a process to identify a
consultant{s) for the Board to consider who would be retained to investigate the feasibility and cost of using
other "off the grid" systems to provide backup power in other County buildings; and adopt the accompanying
Emergency Pawer Capital Project Ordinance.
Commissioner Brown said that to make sure they have a written agreement with the school system
about the use of Smith Middle School, because they have failed in the past to offer this facility or make it
available during storms. John Link will follow upon this.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
~ Appointments
1. Affordable Housing Advisory Board
The Board considered an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisor Board (ARAB}.
Considered at special meeting.
2. *Animal Shelter Operations Task Force
The Board considered appointments to the Animal Shelter Operations Task Farce.
Considered at special meeting.
3, `Commission for the Environment
The Board was to consider making an appointment to the Commission for the Environment {CFE).
Deferred
4.'Visitors Bureau of Chapel HillfOrange County
The Board was to consider one reappointment and one new appointment to the Visitors Bureau of
Chapel/Orange County (Visitors Bureau}.
Deferred
5. *Chapel Hill Planning Board
The Board was to consider one reappointment and one new appointment or continuation of term on
the Chapel Hill Planning Board.
Deferred
6. 'Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task Force
The Board will consider appointments to the Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task
Force.
Deferred
1 Q. *REPORTS
a. *Whitted Human Services Center- Update on Renovations and Space Allocation
The Board considered updated information on the progress of renovations at the Whitted Human
Services Center {Buildings "A" and "B"}, and a diagram of interior space allocation for when the center is re-
occupied and provide feedback to staff.
Considered at special meeting.
11. CLOSED SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting
at 10:30 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED 4/13/2004 MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
December 9, 2003
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for regular session on Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at
7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Margaret Brown,
Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill, Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Managers Rod
Visser, and Gwen Harvey 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.
Items that are in "italic" and starred (*j will be discussed during the Board of County
Commissioners Special Meeting beginning at 6:00. If they are not addressed during the Special
Meeting due to time constraints, they will be addressed in the order they appear on this Regular
Meeting Agenda.
1. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Chair Jacobs suggested moving item 5-c, Resolution of Recognition on UNC's Women's Soccer
Team Winning the 2003 NCAA Women's College Cup, to the front of the agenda since the members of the
UNC Soccer team have another engagement shortly. The Board agreed with this.
PUBLIC CHARGE
The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Jay Bryan presented a letter with some attachments to the Board and said that he was involved
in a formal group that proposed along-range process for determining the comprehensive growth plan for
Orange County. He was also involved in the Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force. Attachment D
is from the process. The task force's final recommendations included one entitled, "Putting Community
Building First," which is Attachment E. He said that the task force endorses the idea of local governments
codifying in ordinance farm, community building ideas, including ground rules for discussion and principles
for collaboration. He made reference to Attachment A, which is a draft ordinance to establish the use of
mediation, conflict resolution, and collaborative principles by various public boards and other groups. The
second draft ordinance is concerning the establishment of principles about community building and how to
incorporate the principles into the ongoing planning process. The third is haw to put together acommunity-
building plan for Orange County. He asked the Board to accept the proposed drafts and to set a time next
year to review and discuss the applicability to the County.
Fred Schroeder began to speak, but Chair Jacobs said that they would get to that particular
item further down an the agenda and far him to please wait until then to speak.
Daman Siles, a member of the Orange County Human Relations Commission and a County
employee, thanked the Board for approving the domestic partner benefits for the County. He pointed out
that Orange County is only the second county in the state to extend these benefits to employees.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.)
3. BOARD COMMENTS
Commissioner Gordon reported on two meetings that she attended recently. One was a design
meeting for high school #3 in which Cammissioner Brown was ill and could not attend. They discussed
interior design elements that would affect the overall design of the school. They spent a lot of time
discussing the media center and where it should be located. Assistant County Manager Rod Visser
attended the meeting and she asked him to make his notes available to the Board.
The second meeting was the Southern Community Park meeting in which Chair Jacobs had a
conflict. She asked Parks and Recreation Director Lori Taft to share with the County Commissioners the
results of the meeting. They discussed the aquatic center and the park timeline, with special attention to
public meetings and meetings of the committee. Staff also brought forward some recommended design
changes. There were several different locations recommended for the dog park because the residents
thought it was too close to them. Also, the soccer field was reoriented so the sun would not get into the
players' eyes.
Commissioner Gordon noted that the Orange County middle school had been discussed by the
Board of Education and she asked far a report on this. Also, at the same school board meeting there was a
facility use policy that she would like the Board to receive.
Commissioner Gordon mentioned that there is a Transportation Advisory Committee meeting
tomorrow. Karen Lincoln will report on this.
Cammissioner Carey said that the Orange-Chatham Justice Partnership Board met and developed
some recommendations to come up with a process that implements the goals and objectives as it relates to
adults and juvenile offenders and potential offenders in the County to try and serve the population in a way
that prevents them from coming into contact with the justice system. This effort has been driven by a few
volunteers and one staff person, Trish Vandersea, supported by Sharron Hinton. This has became a huge
effort to maintain the operations of the group consistent with the State requirements for the amount of
money that the County has received for it. They are coming forward with recommendations for carrying out
the objectives.
Cammissioner Halkiotis apologized for forgetting his recycled holiday cards. He will have them
available to the Clerk for viewing tomorrow.
Commissioner Brawn said that there have been several meetings of the OPC Advisory Committee
that is guiding OPC Mental Health into another form. They have been looking at the system that Orange
County and Chatham County have together and to figure out how not to lose these programs, since OPC is
the employee base far these clinics. They want to make sure they continue to make these services
available.
Chair Jacobs referred to the 2004 Agricultural Summit that is to be held an Monday, February 23rd.
It will be held at this time unless there is an objection from the Board.
Chair Jacobs said that it has been brought to the Board's attention about a development in Orange
County in Mebane with 400 units. They have been contemplating working with Mebane anyway on water
and sewer regarding the middle school and the economic development district there. He suggested
sending a letter to Mebane that they would like to have the opportunity to comment and to send Planning
Director Craig Benedict to participate in this consideration of this development.
Chair Jacobs said that in reference to the renovation of the library space in the Whiffed Building,
the Library Task Force needs to be reactivated. With the Board's permission, the group can be asked to
start meeting again. Same of the members would no longer be eligible and there could be nominations at
the next meeting. The task force would talk about the future of the library.
Commissioner Gordon suggested having the staff come back with a charge and then advertise for
additional members.
Chair Jacobs distributed it to the BOCC boards and commissions list and asked the County
Commissioners to return to the Clerk in the next month or so with recommendations of which groups to
sunset, which groups should have a Commissioner liaison or no liaison, and which groups should have a
Commissioner appointed.
Chair Jacobs pointed out that in the earlier part of the meeting (5:30}, they appropriated $55,000 to
help the Eno River Association and the Eno River State Park protect 987 acres in Orange County.
Chair Jacobs congratulated OWASA for winning the tap water tasting contest.
Chair Jacobs asked Health Director Rosemary Summers to give a flu update.
Rosemary Summers said that the flu vaccination season has been very active. For the County
Health Department, they have already given 3,375 doses of vaccine to Orange County residents. They
have no more vaccine available at this time. They are expecting 250 doses tomorrow. These doses will be
reserved for high risk community members - 50 years and older, nursing home residents, chronic care
facility residents, children and teenagers six months to 18 years of age on long-term aspirin therapy or other
high-risk condition, women in 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy, health care workers, and all household
contacts of people at high risk for the flu. They are also serving essential community personnel, such as
first responders, to make sure they have already received the vaccine. They have also surveyed providers
around the community to determine vaccine availability and most providers are at their last few doses.
There are private providers that have the new FluMist, which is a nasal vaccine. This is expensive. It
should only be taken by people 5 years to 49 years of age. They have also been working with both school
systems to get attendance data. They have started a new campaign called WASHH -Water Action Soap
for Healthy Hands. The posters will be displayed in all County buildings, schools, and municipalities.
Commissioner Brawn asked what the Health Department is telling people that call when there is no
vaccine left. Rorie Summers said that they are taking names on a list and referring them to a provider that
has a vaccine.
Chair Jacobs said to let the media know when vaccines are available.
4. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
John Link recognized two Health Department employees that have won state awards -Donna King
and Gloria Brooks. Donna King is the Director of Health Promotion and Education Services and she has
been awarded the Outstanding Health Educator for North Carolina. She has developed an outstanding
public awareness campaign on the West Nile Virus. Gloria Brooks is a Nursing Assistant with the Personal
Health Service Division. She helps prepare the patients for their visit with the physician. She has been
recognized as the Community Health Assistant of the Year for the State.
John Link said that Orange County escaped the effects of Hurricane Isabel with minor damage. The
counties in the east incurred a lot of damage, and the EMS staff went down to Northampton and Terrell
Counties to help. He asked Emergency Management Services Director Nick Waters to cite the employees
that went down to help establish the emergency operation centers in the two counties.
Nick Waters listed the people that went to Northampton County -Gwen Snowden, Jerry Wagner,
Dinah Jeffries, Michael Day, Kent McKenzie, and Mike Tapp. They were selected because they were the
key people that run Orange County's EMS. In Terrell County, three telecommunicators were sent -Mike
Rice, Steve Newton, and Beth Sykes. They received good response back from the counties and all
expenses will be paid by FEMA.
Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board write a letter of appreciation to each of these EMS
employees.
Economic Development Director Dianne Reid presented a scrapbook of Orange County's 250tH
Anniversary celebration. She gave a brief wrap-up of the Agricultural Heritage Festival. There were 3,750
in attendance. Of those, 3,348 of those people were transported by Orange Public Transportation from the
park and ride lots. Also, 77°l° of the waste from the festival was diverted - 520 pounds of bottles and cans
were recycled, 200 pounds of food and paper was composted, and only 220 pounds was landfilled as solid
waste. They would like to present to Orange County a scrapbook and for it to go to the library for the final
resting place. It can be left with the Clerk for the County Commissioners to look aver before it is presented
to the library. She listed the sponsors that helped fund the celebration. All of their sponsors will be thanked
with a framed print from the Agricultural Heritage Festival. She also gave one to each of the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Gordan asked that there be photocopies of the scrapbook.
Commissioner Brawn asked if this event is to be an annual event, the Agricultural Heritage Festival.
Chair Jacobs said that staff did the most of the work this time and at the Agricultural Summit in February,
they will raise this issue to see if there is support for this on an on-going basis.
~. RESOLUTIONS OR PROCLAMATIONS
a. Resolution of Approval and Acceptance of Grant - Acricultural Conservation Easement with
Everett and Lewis Cheek
The Board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of a farmland
preservation conservation easement from Everett and Lewis Cheek; authorizing the Chair and the Clerk to
sign, subject to final review by staff and county attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document
expected to occur by January 31, 2004; and acceptance of a grant of $235,255 from the federal Farm and
Ranch Land Protection Program for the Cheek easement; and approve the Conservation Easements
Capital Project Ordinance.
Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that this is the second of three
agricultural conservation easements. It is 83 acres of land and it is being funded by the Lands Legacy
Program. Half of the funding is from the USDA Farm Protection Program. He turned the presentation over
to Rich Shaw.
Rich Shaw said that Lemola Ayshire Farm is a dairy owned and operated by the brothers, Everett
and Lewis Cheek, and also their families. The farm is located northwest of Carrbaro, and it is in bath
Chapel Hill and Bingham Townships. It's on Dairyland Road. He described the map of the property. The
total farm is about 200 acres, but the subject property is the northern portion. The land is in the University
Lake Watershed and is also east of Pickard Mountain, which is shown in the green area on the left side.
The Cheeks have been operating this dairy since 1925. The Cheeks want to protect this farmland
forever, and in doing so, they will join four of their neighbors who have also protected farmland in this
immediate area, also protecting some of the significant natural area associated with Pickard Mountain.
Those being the Nutters, the Tobens, the Burlingames, and the Keiths, all awning land adjacent to or very
close to this property. He explained some pictures of the property. Notable is that the Cheeks practice no-
till agriculture. They have never had cropland on this property. Neither the cows nor other livestock come
on this property. They do this according to a conservation plan that they have in partnership with the
County and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The conservation easement will ensure
woodland buffers on both sides of Morgan Creek.
The Cheeks have agreed to sell the non-agricultural development rights at the appraised value of
$570,282, or approximately $7,300 an acre. The conservation easement will protect the conservation
values, primarily, the prime farmland on this property.
The Manager's recommendation is that the Board: 1}adopt the resolution approving the acceptance
by Orange County of the conservation easement, and authorizing the Chair and the Clerk to sign the
conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and the County Attorney, with a closing
and recordation of a document expected to occur by January 31, 2004; 2} to authorize the County to accept
$235,255, a grant from the federal government for the Cheek easement; and 3} to approve the conservation
easement's capital project ordinance attached to the materials. The Cheeks were in attendance to answer
any questions.
The fallowing statement was transcribed verbatim.
Lewis Cheek: My name is Lewis Cheek. I'm the younger of the two of them. That doesn't mean all
that much because we're both already in our 70's. Is everybody here from Orange County? Have you ever
noticed how we in Orange County like to bad mouth our County and like to take Orange County's name in
vain because we think taxes are too high, we think regulations are too strict, and we think that Orange
County is oppressing us? But tonight I'd like to say a good word about Orange County. Orange County, in
collaboration with the U. S. government, has seen fit to recognize that there is a need for conservation of
farmland and open space, because open space and farmland has been disappearing at a rapid rate over
the last few years. And we're just glad to be a part of this, because as farmers, your main assets are in
your property, your land. The only way to get money out of it in the past has been to sell it, and it's gone.
So this program allows farmers to get some money from their properly, to still not lase their property, and
not see concrete and houses coming up all around. I've always been a country boy. I like open space. I
like to get out on a beautiful May morning on my tractor and mow a beautiful field of hay. I feel at peace out
there. When I come into town, it's all cluttered. I don't feel at peace. So, to me, this is a great program,
and I would like to commend Orange County for seeing fit to be a part of it.
Chair Jacobs commended the Cheek family. He said that Orange County intends to continue being
aggressive.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the
Manager's recommendation to adopt the resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of a
farmland preservation conservation easement from Everett and Lewis Cheek; authorize the Chair and the
Clerk to sign, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the
document expected to occur by January 31, 2004; and acceptance of a grant of $235,255 from the federal
Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program for the Cheek easement; and approve the Conservation
Easements Capital Project Ordinance.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. 'Endorsement in SuaAOrt of Town of Cartboro's Smith Level Road Resolution
The Board considered endorsing the Town of Carrboro's resolution regarding future improvements
to Smith Level Road.
This item was considered at the special meeting.
c. Resolution of Recognition on UNC's Women's Soccer Team Winning the 2003 NCAA
Women's Challenge Cup
The Board considered a resolution to recognize the UNC Women's Soccer Team winning the 2003
NCAA Women's Challenge Cup.
Anson Dorrance thanked the Board far accelerating the meeting. He introduced the two junior
leaders, one of which graduated from Chapel Hill High School.
Commissioner Halkiotis read the resolution.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adopt and
authorize the Chair to sign the resolution as stated below:
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION ON
UNC WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM WINNING THE
2003 NCAA WOMEN'S COLLEGE CUP
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2003, the University of North Carolina Women's soccer team captured the
NCAA Women's College Cup; and,
WHEREAS, under the guidance of Head Coach Anson Dorrance, UNC earned its 18th national title since
1981; and,
WHEREAS, The Tar Heels completed a sweep of six NCAA shutouts to finish with a 27-0 record, the best in
the sport's history; and,
WHEREAS, the University of North Carolina women's soccer team and head coach Anson Dorrance have
placed Chapel Hill and Orange County on the international soccer map; and
WHEREAS, soccer is an integral part of the social and athletic fabric of Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the Soccer Symposium Task Force in its 2000 report to the Orange County Commissioners
found that over 4000 Orange County youths are involved in organized soccer programs; and,
WHEREAS, the 2001 Parks and Recreation Bond issue ratified by voters included funds to create a Soccer
Superfund to finance additional fields to be dispersed across the County to support and promote the sport
of soccer;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere
appreciation and recognition to the University of North Carolina women's soccer team, both for their
outstanding achievements and for the inspiration provided by their athletic leadership and teamwork,
particularly to the youth of Orange County.
This the ninth day of December 2003.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients iSpring, 2403)
The Board presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving Spring, 2003
Orange County Arts Grants.
Martha Shannon, Director of the Orange County Arts Commission, thanked the BOCC for
assisting with handing out grant award checks far their spring 2003 Orange County arts. The money
distributed is state money and they are glad to give these checks out, but because of cash flow concerns
earlier, they did not get the money until recently.
Arts Grant Recipients:
The ArtsCenter (Jon Wilner)
Carrbaro Music Festival Committee (Gerry Williams)
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission {Andrew Ross}
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Community Chorus (Pat Brooks)
Chapel Hill Museum (Morgan Kenney and Phoenix Miller}
Chapel Hill Philharmonia (Alex Vogel)
Dr. Iris Thompson Chapman {Dr. Iris T. Chapman)
Grady Brown School -PTA Cultural Arts Enrichment Committee {Libbie Hough}
Hillsborough Arts Council (John Delconte}
Historic Hillsborough Commission {na one available to pick up check tonight)
Meadowmont Community Association {Dave Hill}
Orange County Artists Guild (Monica Ferrell}
StreetSigns Center for Literature and Performance (Joseph Megel)
Theatre Orange {Lynden Harris)
UNC-CH Carolina Union Performing Arts Series {Tracey Coppedge)
b. *Status of Women ReAOrt 2002 - Housing Affordability for Women in Orange Count
The Board received a presentation on the 2002 Status of Women Report on Affordable Housing
in Orange County, and provided feedback or comments to staff.
Considered at special meeting.
c. *Report of the Efland Cheeks Park (1I1 Concept Plan Review Committee
The Board received a report of the Efland-Cheeks Park (Phase 2) Concept Plan Review
Committee and provided feedback and direction to staff regarding the proposed Phase 2 facilities,
which staff can then incorporate into a draft site plan.
Considered at special meeting.
d. *Ghapel Hill Township Park -Status Report, Selection of Name, and Process for Submittal
of Master PlanlPotential Phase I (Park) to Town of Carrboro
The Board received a status report on the Chapel Hill Township Park and Educational Campus
Master Plan, considered selection of a name for the site, and reviewed the process and timetable for
submittal of the Master Plan and a Conditional Use Permit application for a possible phase I of the
Township Park to the Town of Carrboro and schedule the Master Plan, phasing and cost estimates, and
construction plans for discussion at a work session in early 2004.
Considered at special meeting.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS- NONE
8. *1TEMS FOR DECISION--CONSENT AGENDA
Considered at special meeting
a. *Mr"nutes
The Board approved the minutes of the September 2, 2003 regular meeting as submitted by the
Clerk to the Board.
b. *Appointments
None
e. *Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a refund resolution, which is incorporated by
reference, related to 38 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with
North Carolina General Statutes.
d. ~`Aareement Renewal with School of Dentistry far Dental Dr"rector
The Board approved the renewal and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement between the
Health Department and the UNC Dental School for the services of a Dental Director pending County
Attorney review.
e. '"Budaet Amendment #7
This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration.
f, 'Second Readin_a -Non-Emer_aency Private Ambulance Franchise Application
The Board awarded anon-exclusive franchise to provide non-emergency ambulance transportation
services to NEMTA, Incorporated of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (NEMTA is the incorporated name of Non-
Emergency Medical Transit Authority of the Carolinas, a new corporation based in Chapel Hill).
~ *Contract Approval: Innovative Desian for Wastewater Treatment Desian Services at
The Board approved a contract for feasibility analysis of specific sustainable design elements at the
Northern Human Services Center {NHSC) per Innovative Design proposal dated April 27, 2003 in an
amount not to exceed $36,410; and design services related to the wastewater treatment system at the
Center using living machine technology in an amount not to exceed $72,500, plus incidental expenses that
will be paid to consultant on a reimbursement basis; and exempted this contract from the
architect/engineering selection process as provided in GS 143-64-32 and authorized the Chair to sign,
contingent upon County Attorney and staff review.
h. *Housina Bond Proaram - OPC Foundation far Mental Health
The Board approved the transfer of the appropriation of $300,000 in Housing Bond funding from the
Club Nova Apartment Complex sponsored by the OPC (Orange-Person-Chatham) Foundation for Mental
Health and the N.C. Mental Health Association to a proposed property acquisition project for homeless,
disabled adults, and families.
i. `Impact Fee Reimbursement
The Board approved the impact fee reimbursement request from Habitat for Humanity of Orange
County, NC, Inc. for $22,407 for seven new homes.
L Consideration of Fundin_g Support for Eno River Land Acquisitions
The Board approved the appropriation of $55,000 to the Eno River Association toward preservation
of two tracts along the Eno River -the Poplar Ridge and Eno Wilderness properties.
k. 'Proposed Amendment to the Joint Planning Area Zoning Atlas for the Rusch Hollow SitE
The Board approved a proposal to amend the Joint Planning Area (JPA} Zoning Atlas to change the
zoning of approximately 3.03 acres of land northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road
from Residential-1 (R-1) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C} zoning district.
1. *Resolution Supportin_g Governor Easley in Opposin_q an 4utlying Landin_g Field at Any
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a resolution, which is incorporated by
reference, supporting Governor Easley in opposing an Outlying Landing Field (OLF) at any site that is
unacceptable to the State of North Carolina.
m, 'Section 8 Project Based Voucher Program
The Board approved the execution of the Agreement to Enter into Housing Assistance Payments
Contract, Parts I and II, with the Club Nova Apartments, LLC for the proposed Club Nova Apartments in
Carrboro upon the review and approval of the County Attorney.
n. *Breastfeedin_g Education and Support Program/Expanded Food & Nutrition Education
Program -Two Month Expansion
The Board authorized the allocation of $27,000 from the Human Services Safety Net Reserve to
provide a time extension of two months for the In-Home Breastfeeding Support Program/Expanded Food
and Nutrition Education Program.
9. ITEMS FOR DECISION--REGULAR AGENDA
Next Steps on Analysis of Potential School Mercer iVerbatim}The Board considered
discussing the next steps regarding the examination of potential impacts resulting from a possible
merger of the Orange County Schools and the Chapel Hill -Carrboro City Schools.
Chair Jacobs: As we said previously, there is a new permutation, the blue color, at our places
that is this agenda abstract in its most recent version.
John Link: At your November 11t" work session, you discussed the elements of four individual
proposals that Commissioners Brown, Gordon, Carey, and Jacobs presented that evening. In addition,
you discussed to some extent the major themes that you had heard at the first two public hearings. And
you also asked the County staff to respond to certain questions that you had that evening that you
would like to have answers to for tonight. And so I'm going to ask Rod Visser, Assistant County
Manager, to walk through briefly the material as we've tried to construct it to your benefit tonight that
responds to your questions and also tries to put into some context the information that you shared as
part of your proposals that evening.
Rod Visser: I'll just try to point out some of the attachments that were provided in response to
some of the questions the Board raised, as John pointed out, and just mention briefly the difference in
the blue version of the abstract that you have in front of you compared to the one that you received last
week. As John noted, at the November 11t" work session, the County Commissioners had their first
opportunity to really talk about the report and the public input that had been provided over the previous
two months. We've prepared this agenda item for your discussion and follow-up on around a number of
major themes. Some of the attachments that are provided will help you organize your discussion about
that; the first four attachments in here are the proposals presented by four of the Commissioners on
November 11t". Three of those four proposals actually mention specifically an interest in pursuing
further collaboration in conjunction with the school systems, and part of your abstract includes a brief
summary of the points from Commissioners Gordan's, Jacobs', and Brown's proposals that dealt with
collaboration.
We also included just for reference purposes a draft collaboration initiative that had been
developed about a year ago, pursuant to conversations between the chairs of the Board of County
Commissioners and the two school boards working in conjunction with Dr. Phil Boyle at the Institute of
Government. That proposal has been discussed a couple of times during the past year, but we hadn't
taken any action on it in light of the analysis that was pending regarding potential merger implications
and funding equity considerations. I guess it would be important to report that I talked with Phil Boyle
probably about six weeks ago, and his circumstances have changed. My understanding is that Dr.
Boyle is going to be leaving the Institute of Government at the end of this academic year, sa it is not
clear that the proposal that was developed a year ago was one that could actually be carried through.
Phil did tell me that he would have some interest in doing it but it's not clear that he'd be able to
accomplish it within the time frame while he's still working for the Institute of Government. So, the
information that's there may still be relevant to the discussion that the Board may have about potential
collaboration.
Another topic that was discussed an November 11th was both Commissioners Brawn and Jacobs
talked about the possibility of convening an educational excellence evaluation group.
Another theme that was discussed as part of those proposals, primarily Commissioner Jacobs,
was a school efficiency study that would be aimed at assessing and providing reassurance to the
community and the Commissioners, and other interested parties that the appropriations that the County
Commissioners were making for education now were being well and efficiently spent. What is new in
this blue sheet, which primarily falls in that area? This is same additional information that the County
Attorney has pulled together that talks in a little bit more detail than what we had in the original abstract
last week about what the statutory provisions are under North Carolina law far the allocation of current
expense funding, for example, by Boards of County Commissioners towards purpose or functions or
projects within Schaal budgets. And I am sure Geof Gledhill can respond to any questions that you
might have about those details.
Another major element of research that the County Commissioners asked for was far a thorough
assessment and presentation on the workings of a countywide supplemental tax. And the County
Attorney likewise has done the work on that. There was a letter prepared that covered same topics that
were not addressed in previous letters that Geof has written over the years on issues that relate to
district taxes. That information was provided for the Board's information as well.
The last topic that you wanted addressed is the proposal contained in Commissioner Corey's
proposal from November 11th about the timing for making a yes or no decision about whether ar not to
proceed with merger.
That describes the materials that you have. One more thing I would add is that in addition to the
information that Geof Gledhill provided about the statutory workings of allocation by funding, there are
two red attachments here that are referred to in the abstract, and they basically provide some
information about the uniform school budget format that is required of school boards throughout the
State of North Carolina, and also same more statutory provisions that are relevant about amendments to
those school budgets.
Commissioner Brown: I would be interested in the analysis of what Geof brought forward and
brought to us in this. Reading the legal material, it is not perfectly clear to me.
Geof Gledhill: Which area are you specifically talking about?
Chair Jacobs: Educational funding.
Geof Gledhill: What was added to the abstract related to educational funding is the notion that
rather than appropriating a lump sum to the schools each year for current expense money, the Board of
Commissioners is empowered to appropriate by purpose and function. And one of the attachments,
Attachment X, gives an example of the degree of division that's contemplated in that law. The other
point that was added to the agenda information was the notion that the efficiency study that has been
proposed by one or more of the County Commissioners fits in with the power granted counties to
request and obtain information from the schools with respect to actually just about anything going on in
the schools. And in that regard, the County Commissioners can request and the boards of education
are required to provide books, records, audit reports, and other information bearing on the financial
operation of the local school administrative unit. So that in the context of an efficiency study, there is
ample power to obtain whatever information is deemed necessary in completing the efficiency study.
That summarizes the changes to the abstract that were made to add those ideas to what was put
together by the staff before that.
Commissioner Brown: Can you give me an example of the first type of funding?
Geof Gledhill: By purpose and function type funding?
Commissioner Brown: Yes.
Geof Gledhill: If you look at Attachment X, which is red, the first grouping -this comes from the
Orange County Schools' budget resolution for 2003-2004, which is the only document that we were able
to obtain in this short time that we had to pull this together. It lists instructional programs. I am not
certain what would be a purpose and what would be a function. But, for example, you could appropriate
your local current expense fund money, which is what the first grouping, section 1, of that budget
resolution reflects. The total of $19 million in local current expense fund, of which $17,205 comes from
the County's per pupil allocation. Yau could allocate in the budget regular instructional programs,
special instructional programs, co-curricular instructional programs, and so forth, if you were so inclined.
That has not been the practice of the Orange County Board of Commissioners for as long as I know.
Your practice has been to go to the bottom line and do a per pupil allocation, and then allow the schools
to create the allocations in their budget. The schools are required to submit to you in a budget request
these allocations. And then you can appropriate on that basis and then they must, in turn, adopt on that
basis if you direct them to, if you appropriate it on that basis.
Commissioner Carey: And if we appropriate on that basis, in order for the school system to
make any changes to that, they'd have to come back to us for approval of any changes.
Geof Gledhill: Within limits. The other attachment that was added is Attachment Y, which is
also red. And it explains in subsection B, the degree to which the budget can be changed by the Board
of Education. And there is leeway for the Board of Education to reallocate, but beyond that leeway, it
would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Brown: Why was it that you could only obtain a copy of the Orange County
School Board's?
Geof Gledhill: I think the answer is because of the amount of time.
Commissioner Brown: How much time?
Geof Gledhill: A couple of days. I do not know what Donna Dean was able to obtain as a
document from the Orange County Schools. I think just because of the amount of time, it is the only one
that could be obtained in the short time.
Rod Visser: What we were actually trying to retrieve was some kind of document that may have
existed. We started with the State Department of Public Instruction to see if there was something on the
website that lays out what the budget format for this is, and it may be out there and we just didn't find it
in a short period of time. So we do not mean to suggest that we did not get what we asked for from
either school system or anything like that; we were just trying to pull together information about what
generically is the uniform school budget format.
Geof Gledhill: Although it does not show up in this attachment, each one of those categories
like regular instructional programs, special instructional programs, has a corresponding number, count
number, in the uniform budget format. That is not shown in the way this is presented, but those da
appear in the base document that the schools used to put their budget together.
Commissioner Halkiotis: It says the Board of Education may amend the budget to transfer
money to or from the capital outlay fund, to or from any other fund, with the approval of the Board of
County Commissioners to meet emergencies, unforeseen and unforeseeable at the time the budget
resolution was adopted. Then it goes on, when such an emergency.....lsthls just for emergency
situations and that's all?
Geof Gledhill: Yes.
Commissioner Halkiotis: So it is not standard operating procedure, day-to-day business stuff,
it's just for an emergency. And how is an emergency defined?
Geof Gledhill: I don't think that it is. The one thing that I will say about it is that it has to be
something that arises after the adoption of the budget. I don't have any experience with this; I don't
think the County has had any experience with this. I don't know what would be regarded to be an
emergency. It's probably something you would recognize if it happened.
Rod Visser: I can offer an example that is provided from a textbook perspective, and this is
digging way back into classes from longer ago than I'd want to admit. The example that I recall being
cited was, for example, if a tornado came through and ripped a roof off the building and a school system
did not have adequate reserves to get that replaced immediately. What this basically provides is a way
around the prohibition that exists in the statutes to keep school systems from just routinely moving
money from current expense to capital and vice versa. There are same checks and balances that were
put in here that require the Board of Commissioners to approve it, and also provide an opportunity for
any other school board in the County to comment on that emergency request prior to the Board of
County Commissioners taking action on it.
Geof Gledhill: And ultimately, there would have to be agreement, I think, between the Board of
Education and the Board of County Commissioners as to whether there is an emergency before it could
be transferred.
Chair Jacobs: Other questions for staff?
Commissioner Gordon: Yes I would like to ask about the countywide supplemental tax. Is
there any more information that we need to know besides what you've given us? I was interested in the
process by which this could take place. Besides your recommendation about the timeline and other
information, but in terms of background information, have you given us everything you can think of?
Rod Visser: Yes, as far as I know. It doesn't mean that you might have asked a question and
we didn't think through it. In the materials here, as I said, Geof Gledhill has written about this topic on a
number of occasions actually dating back to 1990, sometimes with slightly different perspectives each
time. Also, the September 15t" report had quite a bit of material, both in the narrative and in the
appendices, that talks about the statutory workings. We hope that we have covered everything, but we
are certainly wide open to any questions that you might ask.
Commissioner Gordon: In terms of the countywide supplemental tax that the County
Commissioners would ask for on their own initiative, my understanding is a) we could ask for it on our
own initiative; b) it would be a countywide referendum; c) in the referendum document, that it would be
specified if it's capital or whether it's current expense and what the maximum tax rate would be; and that
it would have to be appropriated to the school districts within a specified time frame. What I was not
quite sure of is to what extent the school boards and the Commissioners would need to agree, if at all,
on what that money would be used for, besides the general title of capital and current expense.
Geof Gledhill: If the Board of County Commissioners on its own initiative calls the referendum,
the statutes do provide some ability on the part of the County Commissioners to direct where the money
would be spent in the ballot question. I think I would want to look at that more carefully before giving
you an opinion as to how much flexibility there is in that area. That is a nuance that I did not spend a lot
of time on. But I know that in the enabling legislation far calling these referendums, there is same
discretion provided for the group calling for the election and directing where that money goes. There
was something else that you said that prompted me to want to comment.
Chair Jacobs: Time limit. She asked about time.
Commissioner Gordon: I do not remember stating it exactly that way. It said that within a
certain number of days after the close of the month, the money had to be remitted to the school system.
And that is a little different from the way we appropriate money. Essentially, what I was interested in
asking had to do with haw general it was versus haw specific, and what kind of discretion the Board of
County Commissioners had, and how it might be used. There were a lot of different things you went
through that had to do with the County Commissioner initiative. I was just trying to make sure that
understood that as distinguished from all the other initiatives, which seemed to have many mare
limitations than the County Commissioner initiated countywide supplemental tax.
Geof Gledhill: That surprised me as well. Let me answer that question further than I have, but
let me also make the point that a supplemental tax is not a County appropriation. Once the County
Commissioners set the tax rate, the money belongs to the schools and it is not an appropriation like the
annual current expense appropriation ar the annual capital appropriation from the County
Commissioners. And what that means is that the money is turned over as we speak with respect to the
Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system district tax as it is collected. And you have seen that some in the
different way in which fund balances are presented to you in order to accommodate that different way in
which the money comes to the school systems. On the other hand, the County's current expense
appropriation comes to the school systems monthly, in 12 monthly increments, to help them in their fund
balance work and in their need for the same amount of money, generally speaking, each month.
Commissioner Gordon: The last thing is that it would have to be appropriated per pupil, per
average daily membership and so forth, collected countywide and then distributed per pupil.
Geof Gledhill: That is exactly right. If the County Commissioners are interested in me providing
you more information on how finely you can draw the ballot question, then I would be glad to look at
that, but I have not spent time with that in this work.
There is one other important nuance between a County Commissioner initiated supplemental tax
and one that results from an initiative from the Boards of Education, and that is the North Carolina law
provides that where the countywide supplemental tax is initiated by the Boards of Education, a
successful election results in any other district supplemental tax going away as a result of the election.
And in fact the ballot must say that. There is no similar provision in a county initiated countywide
supplemental tax election, for example. So that if the election for a supplemental tax countywide was
initiated by the Board of County Commissioners, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district tax could
remain in place. I guessed at why that might be in a letter that I wrote to you, but I really do not know
why that is the case.
Chair Jacobs: How would the Board like to proceed? As far as I know, no member of the
public has signed up to speak, but that does not mean that people will not want to be recognized to
speak. Would you like to discuss the items on the agenda and then solicit public comment, or have
public comment now?
Commissioner Carey: Let's discuss the items on the agenda first.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to mention that I had faxed to the Commissioners last
night an augmented proposal. As you remember, four Commissioners presented proposals, and the
details of the proposal that I presented remain the same. I did fax this to the Commissioners and then I
passed it out tonight, and it is almost the same as the proposal that I faxed last night, except that I
corrected a couple of typing mistakes. It gives the rationale behind the proposal and also it discusses
how my proposal fits in with the issue of possible merger. The main thing I wanted to mention was that
there seemed to be some misunderstanding about what the funding equity part of my proposal included.
And what I wanted to stress was that the Commissioners are going to have to decide the ultimate
maximum level to tax, and the voters would have to approve it. But if that happened, the tax would be
available as soon as possible, and that means July 1, 2004. And when I studied these issues, I thought
it was very important that the money should be available to the Orange County system as soon as
possible. My proposal seemed to be misunderstood in the sense of what kind of effect it would
eventually have. My thought would be that if we could all agree that the County supplemental tax would
be put to a vote, and there is work to be done on that, that we would have a permanent targeted tax,
and it would specifically provide money to the Orange County school system as soon as possible, again,
July 1, 2004. The other thing I wanted to mention was if the Commissioners and the voters agreed, the
amount of tax levied could increase in subsequent years until the funding disparity was reduced or even
eliminated. I think the proposal was misunderstood in thinking that there would be a certain cap. My
proposal had to do with getting money to the Orange County school system in July 1, 2004, and then
the voters and the Commissioners could agree. But the funding disparity could be reduced or even
eliminated using this approach, and that was something that people in the public hearing did not seem
understand. I just wanted to clarify that issue.
Chair Jacobs: Let me suggest that in the interest of having some order to the conversation, we
have the agenda abstract set out with specific topics in an order that the Chair and Vice-Chair worked
out with staff. If it pleases the Board, I would suggest we go in that order. The first has to do with
collaboration. As staff notes, it was part of virtually every proposal.
Commissioner Carey: With one exception. I don't see my proposal on here. I see the three.
John Link: It is referred to as next steps on page four of the abstract.
Chair Jacobs: When I said virtually, I consider merger the ultimate collaboration. So if you
want to speak to collaboration in terms of merger, you are certainly welcome.
Commissioner Carey: Well, you are right, it is the ultimate collaboration. And I think it would
be one that I think has the only chance of working. I can wait until the other discussions about
collaborations are held tonight. The amendment I would like to make in my proposal is not necessarily
inconsistent with collaboration, or what I think might be developing in terms of collaboration. So I can
wait.
Chair Jacobs: Other comments on collaborative efforts?
Commissioner Brawn: I think it has been an initiative of the Commissioners for many, many
years now. It certainly dates back to my first years on the Board. We haven't been good at asking
either school board to initiate discussions on haw they can share resources and a list of things that I
think would be very beneficial. And to bring it up, how can we do something that will perhaps generate
a stronger commitment by both school systems to that. And there was somewhere in our last proposal
to hire Mr. Boyle from the Institute of Government, but he is leaving the Institute of Government and
there does not seem to be anyone left there that would want to do it. So we could move on to another
format, which I see the collaboration issue as kind of breaking down into two or three ways we could
work on it simultaneously. There was the issue of Mr. Boyle just getting a structure of communication
and working on that. Unfortunately, it didn't include all of the members of the boards of education and
us. It only included six or seven people that were going to be involved in that process, which I don't
think would be very fruitful. We need to have much fuller efforts to develop this process. I think it's
been mentioned that the Dispute Settlement Center could offer up someone. And I think it would be
very wise to do that in a public format so people could come in and watch the process and be invited
there. I'd certainly be interested in looking at the previous outline far that and maybe going through it
and editing it a bit and seeing if some of it is still valid.
We have also had a proposal to have a citizens' task force to look at school operations and be
involved in helping that collaboration and/or coming up with data. There are parents and citizens at both
school systems and I think that in a timeframe that would be excellent too. I don't want to leave out
anything here. And then I made the proposal that we work with the School of Education to have them
look at both school systems, and have them do an educational resource paper for us, or a report, and
look at both of our systems. And I feel very strongly that I don't really understand how both of our
systems operate, what they offer and don't offer to the children of Orange County, what their needs are,
and I know that both systems have needs. We see that at budget time every year. And to just do a
simple, straightforward analysis of what our two school systems look like and do some
recommendations that they as professionals at the University could bring forward with some positive,
creative proposals that everyone could look at in the County. And also to see what they have across
the country that they know of that has worked; that's practical; that's cost efficient for sharing resources
in each district; for creating opportunities on how those resources can be shared, and really looking out
into the future of what the County Commissioners and the school boards can try to achieve to offer
better education to all of our children in both districts. That would help me a lot to get a solid basis of
information that everyone could take a look at. And then hopefully that group can also offer their
expertise in suggesting some real creative solution that we don't really see right now.
Chair Jacobs: Understanding that that's an offshoot of collaboration. If I can just bring us back
to collaboration, and then we'll talk about that group.
Commissioner Brown: That's what I meant. This information would be a piece of the
collaboration discussion.
Chair Jacobs: Is there anyone else who wants to say anything about collaboration at this
paint?
Commissioner Halkiotis: I think we should recognize that there were some issues with the
whole topic of collaboration over the last couple of years. When you, Mr. Chair, brought this up initially
and began the use of that term. One of the things that I heard quite a bit back then was the fact that
same people immediately didn't like the idea of collaboration because the proposal that had come dawn
at the time involving our own staff had, with all due respect to Professor Boyle, but there were people
complaining that he had children in one school system and couldn't be objective to the other school
system. So I think we need to look at any and all concerns. I've never met the man, but I heard that
coming from some circles. So we need to go back and review all the concerns that people had from
both school systems with respect to what does collaboration mean. I remember somebody jumping up
one night at somebody who is no longer on the Board and saying, collaboration is another word for
merger. That was a very telling moment. So spend a little time now, if we're going to actively pursue
this as part of the component of the total undertaking. Ga back and look at where the concerns were
raised over the last year and a half. There's no reason to go fall into the same pit all over again when
you can map it out and avoid it on round two. So I would put that out there as a suggestion -staff revisit
concerns that have been expressed over the last year and a half and look at avoiding those same
issues all over again. It wastes time. And I think we can go back over and over the same stuff again
and there's no reason to do that.
Commissioner Brown: Could you give an example of what might have transpired over the last
year and a half?
Commissioner Halkiotis: I was just mentioning that I had heard in some circles that some
people felt the deck was stacked by having Phil Boyle be the facilitator for collaboration because he had
children at that time in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system. But what I'm saying is you eliminate that
argument from any side by having somebody come in who has no affiliation with either school system to
act as a facilitator. And when you mentioned the Dispute Settlement Center, I keep on thinking of the
wonderful work that Andy Sachs has done over the years. And we've used him in County government
for a number of undertakings, and very successfully. So that's all I'm proposing -avoid the mistakes of
the past if that's the road we're going to go down.
Chair Jacobs: I have spoken with Andy Sachs, and he is willing to undertake this project. I had
made a proposal working with Commissioner Brown on some possible areas of collaboration, and what I
would like to suggest is that we take this Attachment 5, the original memorandum of understanding
about collaboration, we give it to Mr. Sachs and to the two school boards, and we send them forth with a
timeline and with some areas that we've identified that we're interested in at least finding out if they may
be fruitful for collaboration. Then ask them to come back to us by the first of June with a report on what
they think they can do together and what they can't do together. And perhaps the first item on their
agenda should be to define what collaboration might be and to respond to this memorandum of
understanding, which was developed with Mr. Boyle, which the two school boards did endorse, and that
we offer that the two school boards and the County Commissioners jointly pay whatever nominal
amount of money that the Dispute Settlement Center would charge as a way of saying, "We're all in this
together". But I personally don't want to be involved in those discussions and don't think that County
Commissioners should be involved in those discussions. I think that there's nothing wrong with our
suggesting areas that we think, based on having listened to the public and listened to the school boards,
might be fruitful areas for the school boards to discuss. I read in the papers that some school board
members thought that we were exceeding our statutory authority to even have the audacity to suggest
certain areas to discuss. And I note in the memo that we got from the attorney that the Orange County
Commissioners have historically not exercised some of their statutory authority to mare closely regulate
what the schools do. We're trying to be collaborative. I see this as an opportunity to say, "Go forth and
do good things. We support you. Here are some ideas that we have." So, Mr. Sachs is excited about
doing that. He was working this evening with the Richmond Hills community in Efland, or he said he
would be here. And I would suggest that that would be a good way to at least get those discussions off
the ground as one aspect of what this Board, I believe, would like, which is more cooperation and more
information.
Commissioner Gordon: I could certainly support that approach. It's very similar to what I had
suggested. I guess the only thing that I would add is that we ought to bring it back on our agenda for a
formal charge and a formal procedure. Over the holiday break, I think I would like to see them take our
ideas and bring it back to our agenda as well as sending it forth to the school boards and to Mr. Sachs
for a formal charge and a formal process as soon as we can in January.
Commissioner Halkiotis: The only other thing I wanted to mention on that is, to save Mr.
Sachs a whole lot of time, I think it's really important far the Manager and his staff to sit down and give
Mr. Sachs a prep session on everything that has gone before here. I don't want to see a study come
back, and I can speak to this with some experience, telling us that both school systems have been
collaborating in transportation. The only reason that both school systems have been collaborating in
transportation is because the way the State funnels the money down to them. They decide to funnel it
through one allocation source, and that's it. It was not decided upon by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
schools and the Orange County school boards. It was a State decision, and that's the way it is. Deal
with it. And it's worked very well, there's a pretty seamless operation going on in school bus
transportation because there aren't any politics involved in it. It just happens because you have to work
with it. That's how the State gives you the money, and they tell you to go out and do it. And if you don't
spend it right, they'll be all over you. That's the kind of straightforwardness and honesty we need to
have in this thing and not end up with something that's going to be a bunch of mystical words and
balloons floating around with little strings dangling from them.
Commissioner Brawn: I would like to see us creating an environment that the two school
boards could work together in. It doesn't direct anything specifically to cover, but just how people need
to trust and share and develop commonalities instead of differences. It's good thinking, it's a good way
to approach this very serious discussion. I'm in favor of it.
Chair Jacobs: And we have forwarded a lot of these documents, including the one that
Commissioner Brawn just mentioned to Mr. Sachs so that he could familiarize himself. What I'm hearing
is that we would like to have staff work with the two school boards to develop a charge, to hire Mr.
Sachs, to state a timeline to work on issues of collaboration, which is part of the charge that could be
identified. Is that a fair summary? And that we'd like to have that come back to us in January.
The Board agreed with this.
John Link: We'll be glad to certainly pursue that. My recommendation is that the Board
confirms that we pursue tangible and quantifiable areas of collaboration. For instance, can the two
school systems and the County collaborate, or having them agree on addressing issues such as how
we pursue budgeting here in Orange County between the two school systems or among the two school
systems? Can we talk about what programming is now on par between the two school systems? With
all due respect to our memorandum of understanding that we've been focusing on in the past, there are
a lot of issues that have to be addressed, but I'm looking to Andy Sachs to address conflicting values
and conflicting beliefs, and talking about commitment. I mean, if you don't' come to the table, you're not
committed. I would rather us have some tangible areas that we can say we're going to collaborate on,
whatever the term is you're going to use. And they're real items -it's the budget, it's programming, it's
how you work together on co-location of certain functions. Is that the areas that the Board wants us to
pursue? Because I'm trying to be as definitive as possible.
Chair Jacobs: Yes. We've given some examples, but you've just given some other kinds of
examples. Perhaps we can finally resolve the issue of what is a mandate.
Jahn Link: That's why I brought up the subject of budgeting. I would like to refer to the red
sheet, which is the item that was described by the County Attorney. We as County Managers,
Superintendents, and County Commissioners are instructed in this process when we go to the Institute
of Government. So we all know what we could da in terms of pursuing funding by projector by program.
There has been no county in this State that has been successful in pursuing that in terms of having a
positive outcome between the school boards and the County Commissioners. It usually results in
acrimonious outcomes, and it's not productive. However, when school boards andtor we are shouting
over the bow, saying, "This will happen or that might happen", that's not productive either. So when we
talk about the budget process, can we finally agree and collaborate on what we mean by mandates?
Can we finally agree and collaborate on what we mean by expansion items in the budget? And can we
finally agree on the fact that the County Commissioners don't fund Spanish teachers? However, when
everyone comes to a County Commission public hearing, and they say, "You haven't funded Spanish
teachers, Commissioners." I can speak only as the Manager, and it makes me want to fund Spanish
teachers by line item. We're in that paradigm where that's the process in which we work with the budget
proposals and presentations. Can Orange County do a better jab than we're doing in that kind of
process? So those are the kind of things I'd like to bring to the school superintendents, and hopefully
we can come back with something tangible that we can all agree as a body of work to collaborate on.
Chair Jacobs: And we would ask you to invite Mr. Sachs to some of those meetings, even if we
have not officially hired him.
Commissioner Carey: Are we finished with the discussion on collaboration?
Chair Jacobs: Yes.
Commissioner Carey: Like I said earlier, the amendment that I would like to make to my
proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with collaboration, because I've been a supporter of
collaboration for many years. It just has not worked to the extent that I'd like to see it work and think it
should work. And if the process that we have just charted a course for works, that's fine, and it may be
needed. One of the scenarios that I plan to ask the Board to consider tonight, and I haven't given up,
and I want the public to know that I haven't given up, on my goal of trying to move this County in the
direction of merging the two school systems so that we can not only benefit from the ultimate
collaboration, but also have potential in the future of saving some money on school capital construction
that we will need to save in order to address important capital needs in the future. I think that's very
important, and I think that merger is the only way we're going to achieve that goal. As long as we've got
two separate school systems that are unequally funded, we're not going to achieve that goal. Sa what
I'm going to ask the Board to do tonight is to consider this proposal. (He distributed the proposal to the
County Commissioners and staff and offered it to the public). It is clear to me that there is common
ground on same things that we've addressed in the context of merger, in this discussion of merger and
equal funding. The one thing that there is clear, common ground on, and I coined that phrase from one
of the members in the audience here tonight, the common ground that everybody was encouraging us to
find on this issue of equal funding and merger. But that common ground is associated with the fact that
everybody agrees that the school systems are unequally funded and the funding scenario is inequitable
between the two, and that we need to address providing additional funds for the County school system
children immediately. We need to fix that, and we have it within our power to fix that immediately. The
other thing that I've heard people say is that they think that this issue is too important far Commissioners
alone to be deciding, that they want the public to decide it. And although I've come a long way too since
we've discussed this, I really wanted the Commissioners to decide the issue of merger and move in the
direction of merger, but it's clear to me after discussion on the 11th and after the discussion tonight, that
this Board is not ready to make that decision, and I respect this Board's decision on that, and this
Board's position on that. In view of the fact that this Board is not ready, though it may be at some future
date. I think it's incumbent upon us to begin now to provide a clear direction for the public on where we
ought to go, and I think the public, to some extent, is ahead of us on this. At least that's what I'm
sensing. And although it makes me nervous to put this proposal forward because we may still end up
with two school systems if the public decides to go that route, I don't think the public will decide to go
that route, because I think that the public has come along far enough now to recognize that it is going to
be in all of our best interests to have a merged school system sooner rather than later.
Consequently, I'm asking this Board to consider putting a referendum forward in the primaries in
May of next year to ask the public to vote on adopting a countywide supplemental school tax, or voting
on merging the two school systems. What that means is that the status quo is unacceptable because
that's what the people have told us, the status quo is unacceptable, and that many people would prefer
to have the public decide this issue rather than the County Commissioners. In any event, it will provide
some additional funds for the County school system immediately, beginning next year hopefully. And it
would also indicate whether there was enough public support far merger for us to move forward with
that. And I recognize that if the public chose merger in the vote next May, or whenever the primary is
held, it's not necessarily a binding decision for the Commissioners. But I think that if the public chose it,
this Board would be required, which we would require ourselves, we would decide in advance that we
are going to pursue implementation of that public non-binding decision. And, as you can see from the
proposal that I've put forward, I had hoped that we could make the decision to move forward to merge
the systems by July 2006. But in view of the fact that we are not going to make the decision tonight or
in February, and then I think the July 2007 timeframe would be the only one that would be meaningful in
this context if the public decided that we should merge the systems. I'm asking the Board to consider
this option of giving the public the option of deciding to adopt a countywide supplemental tax, or merge
the systems. Now that's not inconsistent with the collaboration discussion we've just had, because if the
public decides that they want a countywide supplemental tax rather than to merge the systems, we will
need that collaboration. We will need the benefit of all the decisions that result from that process. And
if that process concludes itself in June, then we'll have something concrete to move forward with. But if
the public decides that merger is the best option and the most efficient and economical option far us to
move forward with, then we may still use some of the suggestions that come out of the collaboration
task force or collaboration discussion, but we will be able to move immediately to the ultimate
collaboration of merging the systems by July 1, 2007.
So I'm asking the Board to consider this whether we decide to put this forward to the public
tonight or at a subsequent meeting. I think that we'd have to make the decision in January in order to
get the issue clarified and on the ballot by May. Sa, I'm asking the Board to consider this tonight,
because I think this responds to what we've been hearing from the public in all of the public hearings,
and I might add that, in the three public hearings, while some people may perceive it to be
overwhelmingly anti-merger, 30°~ of the people in the first public hearing spoke in favor of merger, 40%
in the second, and 35% in the third. That's significant in my opinion. And I think that moving in this
direction and giving the public the option to make the decision would at least give a vision of when the
acrimony and the divisiveness might end an this issue.
Commissioner Gordon: Obviously, part of my proposal would agree with that. It will take a
little while for me to absorb what Commissioner Corey's proposal contains. I certainly think something
that would address the funding disparity between the two school systems as soon as possible has to be
seriously considered. What I said in my rationale leading up to the same proposal that I made on
November 11t", is that I didn't support merger, because I couldn't see arguments for merger beyond the
equality of funding, or the equity in funding or correcting the funding disparity. To me, arguments are
compelling to correct the funding disparity as soon as passible, and that's July 1, 2004. I feel that it's
crucial, and one of the things that Commissioner Corey's idea would do would be to address the funding
disparity as soon as possible. Also, it has the aspect of a vote, which I think is very good. I don't know
when the Board wants to decide about the supplemental tax. I detected at the other discussion that we
had, that the Board wanted to mull things over a little bit more. But I do feel that something to address
the funding disparity has to be done as soon as possible. I don't think we can let that continue. I just
don't see that merger is necessary. I just see that collaboration and especially correcting the funding
disparity is absolutely necessary. So let me think about your proposal, because it has a lot of elements
that I would support in terms of how you stated it.
Commissioner Brawn: The clarification on this and an both of your proposals would be
important about a district tax or supplemental tax. It is the same thing, if I'm not wrong. And what
you've both proposed is just a slight variation of beginning that process of reducing the Chapel Hill
district tax and implementing a countywide tax for schools. But I do want to clarify one issue, and I think
Commissioner Carey mentioned it at the bottom here, that putting in Commissioner Gordan's proposal
does not truly tell us the details of how much money would be raised for the Orange County system and
also the Chapel Hill system. This would have to be done in a per pupil way. And so we talk about
immediate monies to alleviate the Orange County system's budget issues, but we also need to know
how much money the Orange County system would get. And I have not seen any figures that represent
that. But proportionally, John, maybe you could just comment on afour-cent increase for Orange
County, what would be the equivalent amount increase for Chapel Hill?
Jahn Link: I think Rod Visser, who helped develop these charts that we presented during our
report of September 15`", may recall what the mathematical breakdown is between the two systems.
But obviously when the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro system had 10,000-11,000 students to the Orange County
system who has 7,000, then proportionally on a per pupil basis, of course, the Chapel Hill system
receives more money of every dollar than you can credit to the Orange County system. We can
certainly come back with more detail charting of examples of how a countywide district tax would work.
We'd be glad to do that. We'd be glad to research, along with the attorney, how Commissioner Corey's
proposal would work from a legal perspective. I don't know whether that would take special legislation
to pursue, or if it's something that is provided far right now in terms of the election process.
Rod Visser: I think John has got the right idea. We can bring back a table that would show for
various levels of a supplemental tax countywide, how much of that would go to Chapel Hill-Carrboro,
and how much of that would go to Orange County. But it's basically a 62-3$ split thereabouts, based on
the different student populations.
Commissioner Brown: So, if you did this, as Commissioner Gordon suggests, you'd give a
fairly large sum also to the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro system.
Rod Visser: Right now we're just under $1 million per penny that comes on the tax rate. So, for
four cents, let's say, for argument's sake, it's $4 million that would come from that. Sixty-two percent of
that, which is $2.5 million, would go to the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro system and $1.5 million to the Orange
County system.
Commissioner Brawn: I feel like we need to be very scrupulous when we speak of addressing
the Orange County financial issues, and also saying that we are in this dilemma of funding an a per
pupil basis, and that would also give Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools an extra $2.5 million that they have
not expressed any need for. I think that needs to be really clearly always shown in both ways.
Commissioner Carey: Can I comment on that just for a point of clarification?
Commissioner Brown: You talk about maintaining and increasing funds for the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro system.
Commissioner Carey: Well, I think that as a point of fact, this Board has not held either one of
the school systems' budget stable in any year that I've been on this Baard in the last 19 years, and I
think that regardless of what we do, whether we merge them or whether we implement a countywide
district tax, the funding far bath systems, whether it's one or two systems, is going to continue to go up
because that's our culture; that's what we do. We've got two excellent school systems, so it's going to
continue to go up. And I expect that it will. We still have the authority to decide how much it goes up.
In either one of the scenarios that I put forward with respect to a countywide supplemental tax, my vision
is that if we implement a countywide supplemental tax, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schaol district tax would
start to go down. It's our decision on how fast we phase it out. But I know that there are some people
who think that it should never be phased out, even if we adopt a countywide supplemental tax. But we'll
have to deal with that. If we merge the systems, we won't have to worry about these different taxes,
we'll only have one tax; one tax to levy. I would prefer that because that means that we would levy one
tax and phase out the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district tax over the term of years. I n this scenario, it
would be between now and 2007. So I think that we're going to give the Chapel Hill-Carrboro schaol
system more money regardless of what we do, and I think we ought to just recognize that fact.
Commissioner Halkiotis: Well, a couple of observations. Qn the surface, I think once again
Commissioner Carey has brought forth an interesting proposal. You seem to do this in increments of 10
months. On the surface, I think it's really intriguing. But I think we need to have the staff, the Manager,
and the Attorney look at this thing in every possible way, to do the kind of analysis, Geof, that you did
this evening. This is the first time in all the years I've been on the Board that we've had explained to us
what the statutes say we could do if we wanted to strictly manage school expenditures. And I don't
want to get into the micromanagement of school budgets. That's the last thing I'm interested in doing.
However, if it's a legal option we have, I think we need to knave all the legal options we have. I think
Commissioner Carey has captured very carefully the sentiment of people on both sides of the issue
through all of these hours and hours of public hearings that we've had. You've captured that spirit. But
I've also learned over the years that our Attorney has an amazing ability, tonight was the first time I've
ever heard him say that it was his opinion on something, that you really couldn't base it in legalese. I
found that intriguing, you're starting to worry me when you say things like that. But I think,
Commissioners, this leads very interestingly into the next two units we're looking at, the school
efficiency study. It says very clearly, "The Board of Commissioners has discussed the desirability of
providing assurance to the public and the Commissioners that County appropriations far public
education are being well and efficiently expended, particularly before any commitments are made to
providing additional financial resources to the schools for a potential merger, supplemental district tax,
or the like." I think if we're going to give some credence, and I'm willing to give this my initial, "I like
this." But I want it coupled very closely to the school efficiency study to guarantee the public that we're
optimizing opportunities for expenditures to the maximum, and also have a common terminology. I don't
want to spend six months having a debate over, "Is this a district tax? Is this a supplemental tax? What
kind of tax is this?" We're the ones who have the opportunity to define exactly what this creature is that
we're helping give birth to here. So, an the surface, I want to say to Commissioner Carey that I like what
you've got here, but I think we need to have all the analysis we can get from our own staff on what's
involved here. Assuming there's a primary in May, which is a big assumption right now based on
whichever superior court judge is going to rule on the latest redistricting proposal from the legislature.
There may not be a primary in May. There may be one in June, July, August, or, as we know what
happened a year and a half ago, some other month.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to clarify what I was trying to articulate before. It is
written down here in the proposal that what you do is that you set the countywide supplemental tax
that's been approved by the voters. Then you look at 2b an the Steps Toward Funding Equity in my
proposal. Then you adjust the city tax rate downward to compensate for the increase in the countywide
tax increase. The only thing I said, and this gets at Commissioner Corey's point that perhaps there
would be an increase in funding to the Chapel Hill schools, is that the schools would be held harmless,
not just in the narrow sense, but the total funding to the district would increase as appropriate to address
demonstrated unmet needs. So if you set a countywide supplemental tax at the four cents, you would
be giving $1.5 million more to the Orange County schools. You would lower the district tax. Maybe not
so much that you would wipe out the entire amount that might accrue. But you would basically not be
giving much, if any, increase to the Chapel Hill schools through this mechanism. So that the 62-38 split
that John Link was talking about does raise (with the four cents, if we levy that the first year) $1.5 million
that goes to the Orange County schools. We'd have to figure out what would go to the Chapel Hill
schools, but they certainly wouldn't get $2.5 million out of this, because we would lower the district tax
rate in a manner which accommodated the unmet needs of the Chapel Hill schools, but they wouldn't
get the whole $2.5 million. I think Commissioner Carey has said, and I have said, that it's not this huge
windfall for the Chapel Hill schools; what it is, is a lot of money for the Orange County schools.
Remember, that's a huge tax increase for the Orange County schools, which is one reason I would like
to have a vote. If we did that in July 1, 2Q03, it would be 20.8 cents. The reason this doesn't cost
Chapel Hill a lot of extra money is because you've decreased the district tax in Chapel Hill as you've
increased the tax in Orange County. But I would add the caveat that you make sure you meet Chapel
Hill's unmet needs as you adjust these two taxes. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly, but
it's not a mechanism to give Chapel Hill more money, it's a mechanism to correct the funding disparity
so that Orange County school system would get more money soon.
Chair Jacobs: First, I will not support having this on the ballot in May. I would consider having
it on the ballot in November. I don't think we're going to have a primary in May, and as I've said before,
and I think I just heard Commissioner Halkiotis say, there's more information that I need before I'm
going to go to the voters, including myself, and say, "Raise taxes on yourself," I want to know that the
$44.7 million in operating funds are being spent in an efficient and effective manner. I think that's only
reasonable. And I think that we have outlined here some other ways to proceed that will give us
information. We've had a lot of members of the public come to us and say, "I have these questions. I
have these concerns." And with all due respect, your original proposal was to merge the schools and
then work out the details. I still think that's what this is. This is, "Let's act without necessarily knowing
all the details." Maybe I'm just more conservative or mare cautious. But I think it's important to be able
to have the school systems have these conversations about collaboration, have a group of independent
educational experts look at what we have, and have an independent expert look at how money is being
spent before we go to voters and say, "These are your two options." I tend to support the idea of these
two options going to the voters, and as I had said previously, I think that a countywide supplemental tax
should go to the voters. Whether these are the two options, the only two options we should take to
voters, perhaps they are. With the uncertainty about a primary and with the lack of information, I would
not support this even though whatever we do may be ultimately divisive among same people, the more
information we provide people, I have faith that people in the community are willing to listen, willing to
evaluate, willing to digest, and then reach a conclusion if you treat them with the respect that we like to
be treated. The way I would like to be treated as a taxpayer is to get this information before somebody
asks me to make a decision. So that's my reaction. C2ualified endorsement, but I still think that we have
a process that I would like to see us pursue.
Commissioner Brown: I'm going to just totally agree with you. I think everyone has brought up
here pieces of everything we need to do. It's time that we need to do them. However, Commissioner
Carey, I don't disagree with your stand on merger at all, but I really need to put out there for our citizens
some vision of what a merged system would look like. That kind of falls into what Chair Jacobs was
saying. That to me is just something that everyone needs to see. They need to have a basis for
supporting it. And without the data and the information both on the tax issue, and on trying to look at the
collaboration, and trying to develop creative information on what a new system could look like, I just
can't move ahead until we have that. And that to me is just the bottom line of it. I just don't want to run
over the voters. They need to have same confidence in what is going to take place in the future if we go
towards merger.
Commissioner Carey: Let me be clear here, because you're bath characterizing me as being
precipitous and wanting to rush to a decision on merger, when that's not necessarily the case. But
think we need to move in that direction. I submit that you have to make a decision that you're going to
merge before you can develop a clear picture of what a merged system would look like. You can't
develop that picture unless you've made the decision to merge. Anything you do prior to making the
decision to merge and getting a group of citizens to work on a proposed merger plan is sheer
speculation, and that's folly. That's misleading the public because you're encouraging them to rely on
something that has no basis in fact, because it's sheer speculation. It's like saying that we're going to
have 1,600 students redistricted and bussed. That's sheer speculation. And it's unfair to put the
speculation out there and invoke fears in the public when you really can't determine what a merged
system is going to look like until you make the decision to merge and then get a group of citizens who
know more about education than we do to come up with a merger plan. And until you've gat a merger
plan, you cannot present a clear picture to the public. You want to put the cart before the horse. I want
to put the horse where it needs to be. And we're the ones who are driving this train, and we need to
take the leadership to do so. And if we don't take the leadership to do so, it's not going to happen. I've
stated my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
But if we do decide to go in this direction and put something on the ballot, and I don't know when
the election is going to occur, nobody does, but I think we need to decide to do so in January. Now this
Board can decide to put this option on the ballot in January, or we can decide to not do it. I think we
should do it. Commissioner Gordon has stated that we needed to have a referendum on merger; she
was the first one who stated that we needed to have a referendum on the countywide supplemental tax.
So she can't say, "I don't want to da either one." And I've heard other Commissioners say they support
variations on this theme of a public vote on a tax. Let the public decide, the public is ahead of us on
this. Let the public decide.
Commissioner Halkiotis: I have a suggestion to move us along, because it's 10:00. We could
be here for a couple of weeks debating this. I'd like to suggest we go ahead and empower the Manager
to look at his proposal and get us the information as quickly as possible and schedule it for our January
retreat. Anything else we do right now, we're just going to present five different opinions up here, and
that's going to be it.
Commissioner Brawn: I think that's great. You definitely have to have that data.
Commissioner Gordon: I just wanted to support something that Commissioner Jacobs said in
that I do think that it makes sense to get your facts and figures to make sure that people are educated.
It is kind of uncharacteristic "Gordonian" form suggesting that we move forward for this. The reason is
because I've been persuaded that the need is so great in the Orange County school system to do
something. But if it's the pleasure of the Commissioners to get the data about why these two school
systems need this money, fine. I just have been persuaded that the Orange County school system
needs the money, and that's why I proposed what I did. But if it's the pleasure of the Commissioners to
get data to educate the public, to do efficiency studies or whatever we need to do to make sure that the
Orange County system is using their money efficiently and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro system is using
their money efficiently, then I could go along with that. I just think that we need to get money to the
Orange County school system. If we can do it sooner rather than later, that was my point.
Chair Jacobs: And if the sense of the Board is we'll come back to this in late January when we
reconvene, that's fine with me, but I would just reiterate that that makes it even less likely that I would
support an early decision because we're going to lose almost two months in gathering any information.
And I think we need information for ourselves and for the public.
Commissioner Gordon: What kind of information do you need?
Chair Jacobs: The efficiency study.
Commissioner Brown: Are we going to then accommodate all of our proposals and get back
information that we need from John Link and move ahead?
Commissioner Gordon: I think that we should have all of our proposals looked at.
Chair Jacobs: If that's the sense of the Board.
Commissioner Brawn: Then we will bring all of them to our annual retreat in January. Is that
correct?
Chair Jacobs: We'll either put it on the regular agenda or the retreat. One or the other, but as
soon as we can.
Jahn Link: We would rely on the Board, at that point in time, to get further instruction or have
further discussion on your education excellence evaluation group, because basically you're at the paint
of talking about a charge and the composition of that element. But we'll be happy to come back by your
retreat ar by the first meeting in January and try to give you further detail an what specific areas other
studies have probed into as it relates to efficiency and try to give you some further ideas as to what the
potential casts would be in this County. We won't be going out for proposals, of course, by that time,
but I think we can give you some further detailed information.
Commissioner Gordon: I thought that was part of what we wanted to do.
Commissioner Halkiotis: I just wanted to put a caution out there because some of the
companies that we've seen some of their PR work and materials they put out, it's a slash and burn
approach. They come in and tell you to lower your thermostats 20 degrees so everybody's freezing,
raise them 20 degrees in the summer so everybody's dying of perspiration, fire 20 people, cut back this,
cut back that. I don't think that's what I'm interested in. I'm looking for something creative, something
that's going to blend in with collaboration that we talked about, something that's going to blend in with
ca-location. Some of those other things have been quick fixers, "Give me my Commission money and
I'm out of here, and you guys go wrestle with the after effects." I'm not interested in that.
Commissioner Jacobs: And if I might just suggest, if you're going to flesh out specifically the
efficiency study passibility, to confer with the two school systems and their staffs to get an idea of areas
that they might be interested in getting more information about, or what kind of timeline they can see
working with someone, understanding that if we're going to try and use this information to make a
decision that we have to have an aggressive schedule.
Commissioner Brown: And I could give you a specific that I'd be interested in for both
systems. When they decide that they'd like to do a program that's going to cast a certain amount of
money, I'd like to know how those programs actually perform. What are the results? What do we see
far our money? And I knave we've invested in several programs that are supposed to address the needs
of disadvantaged students or lower achieving students, but I've really never seen how these programs
actually bring forth results. Then that money gets refunded, and refunded, and refunded, and I don't
even know if the programs exist anymore. So that's one piece I'd like to know.
A PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE FUNDING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORANGE COUNTY AND
CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS
AND THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE MERGER
Alice Gordon -December 9, 2003
After listening to discussions of the possible merger of the two school districts, I believe that
compelling reasons have been offered to address the funding disparity between the two districts. The
difference should at least be reduced or even totally eliminated.
To eliminate the funding disparity, taxes in the Chapel Hill-Carrbaro City School (CHCCS) district
might go up a little. However, in the Orange County School {OCS) district, there would be a huge tax
increase in comparison to the usual tax increases. This past year, for example, taxes went up 1.5 cents per
$100 valuation. If the funding disparity had been entirely eliminated on July 1, 2003, countywide property
taxes would have risen 20.8 cents per $100 valuation. That means the owner of a $200,000 house would
have paid $416 more per year if the tax had been assessed all at once. Of course the more likely event
would be that a countywide tax increase would be phased in aver a period of years, while the CHCCS
district tax would be reduced proportionately. It should be noted that the CHCCS district tax does not
decrease the amount of funding allocated to the OCS. Each year the county allocates the same amount per
pupil to both school districts and then the CHCCS district receives additional money from the supplemental
district tax.
Right now it appears that the majority of people in the OCS district would not want to pay
significantly higher taxes than they are already paying. For example, the results of the November 2001
bond referendum showed that people in the CHCCS district voted 2 to 1 in favor of the bonds, while people
in the OCS district voted 2 to 1 against. It would appear that a major obstacle to raising taxes in the OCS
district is that a majority in that district would be opposed. However, in a merged system, a majority of
people in the entire county might be in favor.
The major reason for merger seems to be achieving equity in funding for the two school systems, a
result that would require a huge tax increase in the OCS district. Moreover, there are significant tasks
besides increasing OCS funding that must be completed in any merger plan, including decisions an the
composition and election of a new school board.
Therefore I support addressing the funding disparity, but I do not support merger. I also support
voluntary collaboration between the two school districts to enhance educational programs and services.
Before merger is contemplated, we need analyses of what is best for the children and how both systems
would improve in a larger district. Right now bath districts are among the best funded in the state and both
offer very good educational programs under local control. Let us assume we can correct the funding
disparity. Apart from the benefit to the OCS from increased funding, I am not aware of any studies or
demonstrations that there would be increased educational benefits to the two districts over and above
increased funding. That is why I believe there are compelling arguments for correcting the disparity, but not
compelling arguments for merger beyond the correction of the funding inequity.
The first part of the proposal that I made on November 11, 2003 included steps toward funding equity.
The benefit of these steps is that they would, if followed, provide for a countywide supplemental tax that
would allocate additional money to the OCS by July 1, 2004. The commissioners would need to decide
the ultimate maximum level of the tax, and the voters would have to approve it. The advantage of the
tax is that it is a permanent, targeted tax that would be approved by a vote of the people, and it would
specifically provide money to the OCS as soon as possible. If the commissioners and the voters
agreed, the amount of tax levied could increase in subsequent years until the funding disparity was
reduced or even eliminated.
The second part of my proposal included steps toward collaboration. These steps involve a
partnership of the school boards and the commissioners to achieve meaningful collaboration bath in the
short term and long term.
The details of my proposal are given below. The proposal is the same as the one presented on
November 11, 2003.
STEPS TOWARD FUNDING EQUITY
The commissioners should take the following steps to achieve funding equity between the two school
districts. (The date to take the step is given in parentheses.)
I. Decide to call an election to determine whether voters wish to implement a countywide supplemental tax
(ad valorem tax) for education. Instruct staff to bring back a report in January 2004 concerning the
recommended process for this vote. The process should include the elements listed below.
(November/December 2003}
A. After receiving the staff report, the commissioners will decide the maximum rate at which the tax
can be levied.
B. The vote on the tax will take place during the 2004 primary election (usually held on the first
Tuesday in May}.
C. The proceeds of the tax will be used to "operate schools of a higher standard."
D. Upon a favorable vote in May, the tax will take effect on July 1, 2004.*
II. If the countywide supplemental tax is approved by the voters, the commissioners will include the
following items in the county budget far FY 2004-2005.` (MaylJune 2004)
A. Set the countywide supplemental tax rate as appropriate to address demonstrated
unmet needs for the schools. It is recommended that the rate be set at 4 cents
per $100 of valuation. This will increase funding to the Orange County Schools
by approximately $1.5 million, which is about one-half of the amount that was
not funded in the FY 2003-2004 budget.
B. Adjust the city district tax rate downward to compensate for the increase in the countywide tax
rate. This adjustment will be made so that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools will not only be "held
harmless" in the narrow sense, but also so that the total funding to the district will increase as
appropriate to address demonstrated unmet needs.
III. The commissioners will formulate funding guidelines and priorities for the countywide supplemental tax.
Far example, the tax could be used for funding equity, to promote collaboration, and for other purposes to
allow the schools to operate at a higher standard. The commissioners will also define equity and identify
their intentions concerning the total tax increase that will be necessary to achieve funding equity between
the two school districts and the time period for that increase. (Spring 2004)
STEPS TOWARD COLLABORATION
I. The two school districts, in partnership with the commissioners, will agree to work with a facilitator to
identify concrete steps far collaboration. They will agree on the funding, the facilitator, and other aspects of
the collaboration study. (By February 2004)
II. The collaboration study will produce an interim report by May 2004, in time to initiate some meaningful
collaboration during the 2004-2005 school year if at all possible. The final report will recommend significant
collaboration that will take place during the 2005-2006 school near and beyond.
Proposed by Alice Gordon at the November 11, 2003 BOCC Work Session
*If action cannot be taken by this date, the tax will be implemented as soon as legally possible.
A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH
ORANGE COUNTY CHILD TO REACH HISJHER
FULL EDUCATIONAL POTENTIAL
PRESENTED BY
MOSES CAREY, JR.
DECEMBER 9, 2003
The Orange County Board of Commissioners should ask the voters to vote to select either a 1) Countywide
Supplemental Tax (ad valorem tax} for Education or 2) Merger of the two school systems during the
primary elections in 2004, which are normally held in May.
The options for the voters would be as follows. Voters may only vote for one of the following options:
Approve a Countywide Supplemental Tax for Education and give the Board of Commissioners
the authority to levy the tax annually up to a maximum of $.351$100 valuation. This vote would be
binding. If approved, the tax would be implemented in July 2004 or July 2005. If it is not
operationally possible to implement the tax in July 2004, the BOCC will proceed with the 2004105
budget to increase the county general ad valorem tax and reduce the CHC School District tax
proportionately to help fund schools in Orange County. This would provide some immediate
financial support for the county school system while maintaining or increasing funds far the CHC
school system.
2. Approve Merger of the two school systems in Orange County with a July 2007 Effective Date of
Merger. While an affirmative vote would be non-binding, the BOCC would commit in advance to
implementing the results of the vote by July 1, 2007. If the voters choose Merger, the CHC
School District tax would be phased out by July 1,2007 as the countywide general ad valorem tax is
increased to fund schools. The phase out of the CHC School District tax would begin in July 2004
with the adoption of the 2004/05 county budget. This would provide some immediate financial
support for the county school system while maintaining or increasing funds for the CHC School
system .
Chair Jacobs suggested addressing items 9-b, 9-c, 9-d, and 9-e.
Commissioner Brown wanted to adjourn at 10:30.
John Link said that the interim APS contract needs to be addressed tonight.
Commissioner Gordon said that 9-b could wait and 9-c should be addressed first.
a. Proposed Addenda to Interlocal Agreement on CHCCS High School #3
The Board considered approval of two addenda to the interlocal agreement that became effective on
August 7, 2003, regarding the planned third Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools {CHCCS) High School #3.
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to refer this item to the
CHCCS board for their recommendation and/or review and approval.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c. Interim Management and Operations Services Contract with the Animal Protection Society for
the Orange County Animal Shelter
The Board considered approving a contract negotiated by County staff with Animal Protection Society
{APS) to provide interim management and operations services for the Orange County Animal Shelter from
February 1, 2004 through June 30, 2004 in the amount of $44,470 per month, subject to final review by the
County Manager and County Attorney.
Jahn Link said that they have tried to address all points discussed in previous meetings regarding the
interim contract. This contract carries through June.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the
Manager's recommendation to approve a contract negotiated by County staff with Animal Protection Society
{APS) to provide interim management and operations services for the Orange County Animal Shelter from
February 1, 2004 through June 30, 2004 in the amount of $44,470 per month, subject to final review by the
County Manager and County Attorney.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Southern Orange Senior Center Planning Process
The Board considered outlining the planning, design, and construction process for the Southern Orange
Senior Center, including timeline; and to recommend planning committee structure and schedule
appointments to be made at the first Board meeting in 2004 {January 26).
Fred Schroeder distributed a handout. He is the past president of the Friends of the Chapel Hill Senior
Center. He expressed appreciation to the Board of County Commissioners for their ongoing and present
support of issues important to seniors in Orange County. He presented the resolution. This is a unanimous
resolution by the board of the Friends, urging the County Commissioners to change the location of the
proposed new Southern Orange Senior Center to the northeast corner of this property. The previous plans,
which had anticipated collaboration with the University called for placement of the center on the
southwestern point. These plans are not going to come to fruition and they believe it is essential to move
forward with this center and that this location is the best one. It would permit separate parking and a
separate entrance and it would enhance safety. He recognized the members of the board in attendance
and asked them to stand. He pointed out that they were placed on the agenda for 7:30 p.m. by the staff.
He requested that in the future that there be an earlier placement in the agenda if possible.
Robert Seymour said that he has been involved since the Senior Center's inception and that
space has always been a problem for the Chapel Hill Senior Center. The center is hurting for lack of space
and they are witnessing a major population shift as more and more people move into their senior years.
They are disappointed that the University is not interested in working with them. He hopes that the Board of
County Commissioners will not wait. They need to move now on this building so that it will be ready by
June 2006. He said that wherever they are located they could still work with the University if the opportunity
presents itself. He said that it is important for the center to be visible, easy to find, accessible, and well-
defined parking. He said that it would be great to have this to be across the street from the Homestead
Park and the new proposed aquatics center. They would like to anticipate a facility of no less than 25,000
square feet.
John Link said that the Board needs to affirm the committee structure and begin to advertise for the
positions. Also, the activity timeline could be endorsed.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that they need to move on this tonight and that he is in support of the
resolution. He is tired of waiting on the University.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to endorse the
planning and design development process and endorse the recommended planning committee structure
and schedule appointments to be made at the first Board meeting in 2004 (January 26}.
Commissioner Brown said that she is not in favor of choosing the structure that they have in front of
them tonight because there needs to be someone from the Chapel Hill Town Council. She would also like
to see some people from the Northside Center and the Carrboro Board of Aldermen included.
Commissioner Brown suggested that they drop one of the advisors and asked what an advisor is.
Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that an advisor is a citizen that actually uses the center that
would be able to provide specific design input. There are planning program advisory committees for
Northside and Chapel Hill Center, who are users and involved heavily in center activities.
Commissioner Brown said to add Chapel Hill and Carrboro to this process and to cut down the number
of the Friends of the Senior Center members to two and to increase at-large numbers to four.
Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Gordon volunteered to serve on the committee.
This was agreeable to Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Carey to amend the motion as stated
above.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that they instruct staff to bring back a recommended charge for the
committee.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Soccer Superfund -Policy and Guidelines
The Board was to consider a draft policy and set of guidelines far use of the Soccer Superfund and
provide feedback and input to staff. The document would be brought back for action at a subsequent
meeting.
DEFERRED
f. Emergency Power Sources for County Buildings
The Board considered the need for and authorizing staff to take certain steps towards providing backup
power capabilities at key County facilities during electrical outages; and authorizing staff to retain the
services of an electrical engineer to design the wiring schematic for bath the Southern Human Services
Center and the Government Services Center, so that both buildings will be "generator ready"; and
authorizing staff to proceed with bidding both projects for Board award as expeditiously as practical; and
instructing staff to conduct a process to identify a consultant(s) for the Board to consider who would be
retained to investigate the feasibility and cost of using other "off the grid" systems to provide backup power
in other County buildings; and adopting the accompanying Emergency Power Capital Project Ordinance.
John Link said that they have money to have two buildings prepared for generators. The top priority
would be far the Southern Human Services Center and the second priority would be the Government
Services Center. In either case, they would not be recommending to buy the generators this year, but to get
the buildings wired.
A motion was made Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the
Manager's recommendation to authorize staff to retain the services of an electrical engineer to design the
wiring schematic for both the Southern Human Services Center and the Government Services Center, so
that both buildings will be "generator ready"' and authorize staff to proceed with bidding both projects for
Board award as expeditiously as practicable; and instruct staff to conduct a process to identify a
consultant{s) for the Board to consider who would be retained to investigate the feasibility and cost of using
other "off the grid" systems to provide backup power in other County buildings; and adopt the accompanying
Emergency Pawer Capital Project Ordinance.
Commissioner Brown said that to make sure they have a written agreement with the school system
about the use of Smith Middle School, because they have failed in the past to offer this facility or make it
available during storms. John Link will follow upon this.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
~ Appointments
1. Affordable Housing Advisory Board
The Board considered an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisor Board (ARAB}.
Considered at special meeting.
2. *Animal Shelter Operations Task Force
The Board considered appointments to the Animal Shelter Operations Task Farce.
Considered at special meeting.
3, `Commission for the Environment
The Board was to consider making an appointment to the Commission for the Environment {CFE).
Deferred
4.'Visitors Bureau of Chapel HillfOrange County
The Board was to consider one reappointment and one new appointment to the Visitors Bureau of
Chapel/Orange County (Visitors Bureau}.
Deferred
5. *Chapel Hill Planning Board
The Board was to consider one reappointment and one new appointment or continuation of term on
the Chapel Hill Planning Board.
Deferred
6. 'Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task Force
The Board will consider appointments to the Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task
Force.
Deferred
1 Q. *REPORTS
a. *Whitted Human Services Center- Update on Renovations and Space Allocation
The Board considered updated information on the progress of renovations at the Whitted Human
Services Center {Buildings "A" and "B"}, and a diagram of interior space allocation for when the center is re-
occupied and provide feedback to staff.
Considered at special meeting.
11. CLOSED SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting
at 10:30 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board