Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20050208APPROVED 3!15!2005 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION with SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD February 8, 2005 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Joint Work Session with the Solid Waste Advisory Board on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center In Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: S. Sean Borhanian COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS: Chair Jan Sassaman, Vice -Chair AI Vickers, and members Bonnie Norwood, Randolph Kabrick, Joe Clayton, Linda Bowerman, and B.J. Tipton SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Remus Smith SOLID WASTE STAFF: Gayle Wilson, Blair Pollock, Rebecca Holdway, Paul Spire, Mike Meagher, Rob Taylor, Muriel Williman, Sean Evanson NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. 1. Dinner 2. Board of Commissioner Comments/Questions The meeting began at 6:05 p.m. Chair Carey said that Commissioner Gordon will be late for this meeting because she has another commitment. Everyone introduced themselves. 3. BOCC Requested Updates a. Eubanks Road Master Plan {including new solid waste operations center, C&D resale facility, Greene Tract conservation easements, new C&D landfill} Rod Visser said that abaut three years ago the Board of County Commissioners approved about four to six proposed elements of this master plan, and the staff has been working from this since then. He made reference to the Greene Tract Work Group recommendations that were sent to the three governing boards that own the property, which were that the 104 acres that remain in joint ownership should be split between primary uses (15 acres for affordable housing and the other 85+ acres for open space}. One of the recommendations ofthe work group was that same type of conservation easement should protect the open space. All three governing boards received this report and accepted the recommendations from the work group. The recommendations specifically proposed that the conservation easement be implemented sometime between July 1, 2003 and July 1, 2005. In talking with Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil, there is an informal agreement with Triangle Land Conservancy that they would be the appropriate party to execute the conservation agreement. The next steps are for David Stancil to get back in touch with Triangle Land Conservancy to formalize an agreement. Commissioner Jacobs asked when the repayment had to be in and Rod Visser said that there is a direct tie in the recommendations to the conservation easement, which is sited as the "triggering mechanism" for reimbursements from the three governing boards back to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson gave a brief overview of the master plan. He went over the "Landfill Neighborhood Map." He then went aver the "Solid Waste Facility Master Plan" map. He said that with the adoption of the Regulated Recycling Materials Ordinance, they upgraded the mulching and recycling area. There is also a maintenance building, a recycling pad, and the area where the new C&D landfill is constructed. Across Eubanks Raad are the existing landfill that will close in 2010 and the Hazardous Household Waste (HHW} electronic recycling area. What is not approved relating to the master plan is a location for the transfer station. Across the road from the four-acre property of the proposed new solid waste operation center is an area that the County Commissioners have approved for a potential future construction material resale store. He pointed out the buffer areas far the landfill. Regarding the operations center, the staff will be coming to the County Commissioners on March 1St to bring a concept plan forward. If the plan is approved, they will come back at a subsequent meeting to ask for approval of a contract for an architect. He said that the staff would be discussing some ideas for land clearing and storm debris in the future, because the facility could not handle a Hurricane Fran-level storm in terms of storm debris. Regarding the construction material resale store, they have run into a problem that the location just north was approved in the buffer area of the new C&D landfill. They received same feedback from the Division of Waste Management, and they did not say that it would be prohibited from being put there, but they raised several issues. Originally, the building was supposed to be 5,000-6,000 square feet, but now Habitat for Humanity has submitted a rough layout that indicates a building of about 11,000 square feet, and the buffer area is not suitable for something this large. At the Board's direction, the staff can lank for alternate locations for this structure. The Greene Tract is off limits for any solid waste uses. Regarding landfill closure, a closure plan must be developed and submitted to the State for approval. There is currently no funding or plan projected for the closure, but it would cost approximately $2.2 million. This includes placement of three feet of soil over the top of the landfill site, a synthetic liner, a series of methane gas vents, and a vegetative layer of material suitable for supporting grass and other plants to limit erosion. The sail has to have certain engineering properties and some off-site clay might have to be purchased. Also, as part of the closure, there will be about $1 million of equipment that will be eliminated permanently from the equipment replacement b. 3-R Fee Gayle Wilson made reference to the memo in the agenda packet that outlines the current status of the 3-R fee. The revenue generated to date has increased to $2,379,060. The collection rate is now 94.4%. The compliance with the fee has exceeded the expectations. There have been a limited number of appeals with 93 received and 76 granted. It has been a successful operation. Rod Visser pointed out the 3-R fee assistance program, and said that staff has collaborated to develop criteria to assist those citizens that have trouble paying the fee. So far, there are 72 citizens and $3,500 total paid in the assistance program. Chair Carey asked for Rod Visser to provide information on the criteria for assistance. Chair Carey asked how appeals are handled and Gayle Wilson said that there is an appeal form and the staff investigates the appeal and they make a recommendation to him. If the appeal is granted, the money is refunded or they are released from the obligation. Commissioner Foushee asked on what basis a resident could appeal. Gayle Wilson said that if they are assessed an urban curbside fee and they are in a rural curbside area. The rural curbside fee is less. Also, if there is more than one structure on a property and the resident is charged more than one fee, the resident can appeal if the building is for storage, etc. The appeals are only for technical errors. At this time, Rod Visser addressed items e, f, and g. g. Landfill Capacity Rad Visser made reference to the memo in the agenda packet. The existing C&D landfill is just about at capacity, but the new C&D landfill is ready. The mixed solid waste landfill has a capacity of five years. f. Equipment Replacement Schedule This information is provided in the agenda packet. Most of the equipment is needed to underwrite the County's current Ten-Year Solid Waste Management Plan. e. Land Clearing Debris Recycling The staff is working with a Commissioner work group that includes Chair Carey and Commissioner Jacobs to develop some options for people involved in land clearing activity that cannot afford to pay the fee to bring the debris to the County's C&D landfill. They are also trying to come up with a proposal to deal with storm debris. d. Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO] This has been in effect since C}ctober 2002 and there has been a 50% reduction in the amount of C&D waste at the C&D landfill. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the equipment replacement schedule and said that 2007-2008 is the last year for the MSW landfill purchases and then there is the transfer station. She asked what has been done to get ready for the transfer station. The staff has begun a preliminary analysis, and once they reach a certain point, it will be brought to the SWAB far discussion. Commissioner Gordon asked why the SWAB's recommendation has not been taken to the other jurisdictions for approval. She does not think there should be a separate group. Gayle Wilson said that there were strong expressions of interest of participation in a process to make sure that some municipalities' concerns are adequately addressed. Chair Carey would like to know what the SWAB thinks about this. B. J. Tipton said that one thought was to have some dialogue between the jurisdictions and professional staff so that there is same buy in before the stakeholders have to decide. Jan Sassaman said that the SWAB members are representatives and they do the best for those wham they represent. If they get more active representation from elected officials, then there can be a buy in at the planning process and it would go a lot smoother. With regard to Gayle Wilson's proposal, he thinks there should be more involvement of the SWAB. He suggested having two SWAB members on the work group so that there would be an equal weighting. He said that for this to work, the representatives ofthe municipalities must be elected officials and not just two citizens. He said that the SWAB members have been educating themselves an these issues for years and some of them are professionals in the area of solid waste. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the SWAB have a meeting and invite two elected officials from each elected body. Anew group would not have to be formed for this. Chair Carey said that there could still be a process for stakeholders to have input. Commissioner Jacobs suggested using the Assembly of Governments meeting to get this started. John Link said that the intersect between the interlocal agreement and the three- yearplan talks about how to increase the percentage of recyclables that are diverted. He asked if this gets to the point of discussing a Material Recycling Facility (MRF}. He thinks it would be a good idea to refresh us collectively as jurisdictions as to what the interlocal agreement says and where it stops and where the three-year plan begins. Gayle Wilson and Jan Sassaman agreed. Jan Sassaman said that the focus of Chapel Hill's plan was that it continued to call far 61 % recycling, but did not state a means to achieve this. He said that Chapel Hill wants to keep the options open for a pay as you throw system, and the SWAB has a problem with this system if it is implemented by only one jurisdiction. Commissioner Jacobs painted out that April 28th is the Assembly of Governments meeting. Randy Kabrick said that he would not like to take them away from the process that has already been set up. He agreed with adding some elected officials. Bonnie Norwood said that she believes it would be easier to bring elected officials into their group to educate them. schedule. The transfer station must be ready to receive waste the day of the closure of the landfill. Commissioner Jacabs thanked the Solid Waste Advisory Board for all of their work. He asked about the resale stare and the passibility of storing materials recovered from deconstruction. He asked if this would be part of the same facility that Habitat might use, ar if it would be a separate building. Gayle Wilson said that it would make sense to consolidate this into one activity, but he is not sure how much ownership Habitat would want to take for the large amounts of incoming material. He expects that Habitat would have stringent standards as to what they would accept. Commissioner Jacabs asked if the State allows roads through the buffer and Gayle Wilson said yes. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the volume of usable debris coming off construction sites that Habitat can reasonably sell. Gayle Wilson said that the overall volume of C&D material is significantly less than four or five years ago. The Regulated Recycling Materials C}rdinance has been effective. There are some haulers that haul their debris elsewhere to evade the ordinance altogether. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the proposal to go to an 11,000-square foot building. Gayle Wilson said that it was Habitat's proposal. Commissioner Halkiotis asked who would pay for the structure and Gayle Wilson said that it was his understanding that the County would pay for it. Commissioner Gordan arrived at 6:30 p.m. Gayle Wilson answered several clarifying questions about the proposed resale store. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he and Commissioner Jacabs represented the Board in putting together a legislative package. He is convinced that school systems need to plan in their budgets for the appropriate recycling of electronic products. He asked how the electronic recycling has been going. He asked if citizens had to pay for dropping off items. Gayle Wilson said that citizens do not have to pay, but businesses are charged $5.00 for dropping off monitors. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about markets in North Carolina for these monitors and Solid Waste staff member Rab Taylor said that there is no closed loop for these materials in North Carolina other than reselling them. Commissioner Halkiotis said that it is sad that some places are still burying CRTs. He wonders when the State is going to wake up and get concerned about what is getting buried. Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the number of landfills that have electronic recycling. SWAB member Jae Clayton said that the smallest county that does it is Lee County. There are 11 permanent collection sites in the State and 40 counties that collect. There are 26 licensed electronics recycling companies operating in North Carolina. Gayle Wilson made reference to the legislation and said that at the last session there was a bill proposed that did not make it through. Joe Clayton said that they are going to pass the legislation in a different form in that they will put a small fee on CRT's. Commissioner Jacobs said that electronics recycling is still in the legislative packet. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that the Habitat Store was a proposal that came out of the C&D Recycling Task Force. He thinks that Habitat should be involved in constructing the store. He would like to invite Habitat to came and make a presentation to SWAB when they are closer to coming up with an agreement. Gayle Wilson said that they have been fortunate in being able to extend the life of the landfill a couple of years. The County Commissioners need to determine the location of the transfer station so that planning can begin. The transfer station should be ready by the spring of 2010. They would like to begin preliminary design and permitting in 2007. If the County Commissioners chose to put it at a place that was not previously recommended, then the timeline will have to be backed up to identify a location. Commissioner Gordon encouraged the SWAB to look at where this facility could be located. Commissioner Jacobs said that Chapel Hill still has not signed on to the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance. He asked for an explanation of this. Gayle Wilson said that he did not know, but they inquired last spring and the Chapel Hill Planning Director had same questions and the County staff answered them. He thought Chapel Hill was ready to sign on, but he has not heard anything since. He does not know why Chapel Hill has not signed on and the Chapel Hill staff cannot give him a reason either. Commissioner Jacobs said that it would be advisable that Chapel Hill signs on. He recommended the Chair of the SWAB and the Chapel Hill representative bring this up. Jan Sassaman said that they made a presentation to the Town Council in early December and were pretty strong in the statement to them that they should sign an and that there could be some downstream regulatory issues if they do not sign on. Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a letter from the Board of County Commissioners' Chair to the Mayor. Chair Carey encouraged the Chair of the Solid Waste Advisory Board SWAB) and the Chapel Hill representatives to address the matter with Chapel Hill. He will generate this letter. Commissioner Halkiotis said that there should be a list of other outstanding issues that are hanging out there. He is amazed that this is still out there. He thinks it should be Manager to Manager or Chair to Mayor. This need to be resolved. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the ordinance and asked how it was going with deconstruction versus demolition. Gayle Wilson could not answer this with accuracy. Commissioner Jacobs asked that this be put in writing and shared with the SWAB. c. Three Year Solid Waste Management Plan Update; (including steps to address Tawn of Chapel Hill program/service interests) Gayle Wilson said that they need to get back on track and revisit this plan. He has proposed a Waste Reduction Plan Work Group that would include one or two members from each of the elected bodies, a representative from the University, a SWAB liaison, and others. The work group would meet periodically over the next 14-16 months to review the work done by staff and the SWAB. The work group would be reexamining and reconsidering a portion of the plan that serves as a means to achieve 61 reduction. They would be looking at residential and commercial recycling collection, equipment and staffing, materials, regulatory issues, processing issues, financial implications, and the implementation issues. He would like the process to include input from the public, all of the elected boards, the University, and the advisory board. The plan needs to be adopted by the elected bodies and submitted in June 2006. Commissioner Gordon asked if the SWAB has talked about a MRF. Jan Sassman said that they feel strongly that a MRF is necessary. Joe Clayton said that he has not seen numbers yet and there are a lot of MRF's. He said that numbers drive them, and one million people would be enough to drive a MRF. Commissioner Gordon said that she understood that the issues were casts and how many people would need to be involved and who would work in it. She understands that there are terrible working conditions. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he has visited MRF's in Greensboro, Charlotte, and Athens, Georgia and saw the types of people working at them. After those visits, he was not convinced that the County could afford a MRF or produce enough material to maintain one. He said that there was an exploitation of human beings at these facilities. He would never support something like this. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the money far the MRF would be taken out of the 3-R fee anyway. Gayle Wilson said yes and that they are in the middle of an analysis of looking at whether they should consider a MRF operated by the County versus using a merchant MRF through Greensboro or Raleigh. The merchant MRF looks good in the short-term, but they are continuing the analysis. Regarding the employee base, he said that they had assumed a living wage for the employees and a structure that had all modern environmental necessities. It will still be very unpleasant, but they would not consider anything but a thoroughly modern facility. Jan Sassaman said that one of the considerations of the SWAB is that if they are going to increase recycling, it has to go somewhere after the landfill closes. If the facilities are operated in the County, there is control over the issues of justice, ethics, environmental handling, and a good wage for people. Chair Carey said that this is one of the issues that will be addressed as the plan is updated. He thinks the staff has enough direction to proceed. He said that they do not have to wait until April to get started in developing the plan. 4. SWAB Presentation on Maior Issues Jan Sassaman made reference to the timeline on page two, which is a road map of when things should be attended ta. The C&D disposal facilities are an track. The present landfill for Municipal Solid Waste {MSW} will have to be permitted between 2005-2008, and plan to close and cap the landfill by 2010. As they ga off line with the present landfill they will need to get going with the waste transfer station. A site must be identified by 2005-2006 ar 2006-2007. This site must be operational by the beginning of 2010. Commissioner Jacobs said that he hopes that the methane gas group will have a SWAB member. Commissioner Jacobs asked B. J. Tipton what would have to be done with the University in order for her to become an official member. B. J. Tipton said that Gayle Wilson has spoken with someone at the University and initial talks have begun. She thinks the University has been operating on a good faith manner as if they have signed on. Gayle Wilson said that the University wants to see the plan first. They have an interest in recycling and waste reduction, and they have a problem with whether another entity would be efficiently processing materials. Commissioner Jacobs asked Gayle Wilson to send a memo to the Chair regarding whom he spoke with at the University and what the impediments are. 5. Staff Updates -deferred 6. Wrap Up 7. Adiaurn to Regular BOCC Work Session With no further items to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board APPROVED 311 512 0 0 5 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 8, 2005 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice Gordon, Stephen Halkiotis and Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Barhanian 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. 1. Employee Pav & Benefits Personnel Director Elaine Holmes made a PowerPoint presentation as follows: Employee Pay and Benefits February 8, 20Q5 Board of County Commissioners' Work Session Past Pav and Benefits Actions ^ Pay elements including: ^ Cost of Living Increase . In-Range Salary Increase . Meritorious Service Awards ^ Benefits elements including: ^ Supplemental Retirement [401 {k}] Contribution Classification and Pav Study ^ Comprehensive countywide jab classification and pay study ^ Implementation in 3 phases ^ Phase 1 -April 14, 2003 ^ Phase 2 -December 8, 2003 . Phase 3 -April 26, 2004 Pav Actions Over Past 5 Years ^ Appendix 1 shows specific actions ^ Appendix 2 shows costs for all pay elements Summary Pay Actions aver Past 5 Years ^ 2000-01 and 2001-02 ^ COLA, In-range and Meritorious Service Awards ^ 2002-03 and 2003-04 . Class and Pay Study Implementation . No COLA, In-Range or Meritorious Service Awards ^ 2004-05 ^ COLA ^ No In-Range or Meritorious Service Awards Current Needs - Sustainability ^ Ability to retain a stable, qualified, competent and flexible work force ^ Pay and benefits plan essential infrastructure ^ Maintenance is fundamental business cost {not expansion or new initiative} ^ Critical to move forward in 2005-06 to maintain the pay and benefits plan Current Needs -COLA 2005-06 Cost of Living Increase ^ Adjustment to maintain the pay plan bath as to cost of living and market ^ 2004 consumer price index up 3.3°{0 . Greatest increase in transportation costs {up 6.5°~} Current Needs - In-Range 2005-06 In-Range Salary Increases ^ Provides a way for employees to advance in the salary range in relation to: ^ New hires ^ Higher salaries being paid in market as employees gain experience and proficiency ^ Critical to address salary compressian Current Compression Situation ^ Salary compression most urgent pay issue facing the County ^ Employee salaries are concentrated in the lower, hiring area of the salary range ^ Compression examples in report Employee Salaries By Place in Salary Range Chart Current Needs - Meritorious Service Awards ^ Lump sum awards, not a part of base salary ^ Provide a tool for supervisors to recognize and reward tap performers Current Needs - 401(k) Plan ^ Board adopted contribution far general government (non-sworn law enforcement} in 1998-99 ^ Presently $20 per pay period ($520 annually} and 5% for law enforcement ^ Has encouraged employees to participate 401(k) County Contribution ^ Contributions of other area local government employers significantly stronger ^ Next chart shows examples in terms of dollars for an employee making $35,000 salary $35,000 Salary Additional Supplemental Retirement Dollars Chart Pay and Benefits Options and Costs ^ Report Section G illustrates how a pay and benefits package might be configured to address the needs Summary ^ Classification and Pay Study built the necessary foundation to maintain the workforce the County needs ^ Critical to move forward to sustain this work force Commissioner Halkiotis asked for the total dollar amount that the County contributes towards 401 (k}. Elaine Holmes said that the annual County cost is $345,000. This includes permanent full-time and part-time employees who are not sworn law enforcement officers. Commissioner Halkiatis made reference to page $ of the report regarding contributions of other municipalities and counties. He said that he is feeling guilty about this. He asked about the recommendation. Elaine Holmes said that there are several options - a $5 increase or an increase of 1 °~. Commissioner Gordon said that after the Board considered the Classification and Pay Study, they followed the staff recommendation for how to implement the system. Therefore she thought the Board had tried to do the right thing. She said that, historically, there has been a compression problem, and she remembers that when they instituted the classification and pay system, there was some element that could exacerbate the compression problem. She asked far a reminder about this. Elaine Holmes said that when the Board adopted the pay plan they adopted phases one, two, and three to help address the compression issue. However, when the system was implemented, the employees were classified and also the pay levels were increased. Thus mare employees ended up at the bottom of their salary range. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page F-2 and the orange bar for 401 (k} contributions, and said that it looks very low. She said that there seem to be higher priorities, such as the in-range salary increase. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the rate of growth of the County's revenue this year. Budget Director Donna Dean said it is somewhere between 3-3112 %. Commissioner Jacobs said that he always feels conflicted at this time of year. He said that the County employees are not at these meetings advocating for themselves. He said that even though it may be frowned upon in North Carolina for employees to bargain, they should be at the table. He thinks that the spending in the last few years on employee benefits reflects the financial constraints that the County Commissioners have felt. He thinks the 401 {k} contribution looks low on the report, but that is just one aspect. He thinks Orange County is a lot more generous than the State. He cautioned the Board not to feel guilty without looking at the full picture. He feels proud of how the County treats its employees. Commissioner Foushee said that she has met a lot of County employees and she is proud of what she has learned from them. She said that in order to sustain the workforce, there has to be a set of incentives to keep employees here. It is na secret that pay is the ultimate incentive. She agrees that the in-range salary increases must be implemented. Regarding 401 (k}, it is dismal to her to see that Orange County pays $20, given what is paid in this area. There is also an equity issue because sworn law enforcement officers receive 5%. She believes that other employees perform just as well as officers. She would like to bring this contribution more in line. She urged the Board to consider all of the recommendations brought forward by the staff. She said that she does this in her day jab and she knows that what she sees here is not the kind of situation that will retain good employees. Chair Carey asked if the County made any other retirement contributions for employees. John Link said that 401 (k} is important as we each face uncertainty of what social security will provide. He said that they could be proud of the retirement benefits of the State and the local governments. It is one of the benchmark retirement systems in the country in terms of benefits. Cost-of-living and in-range are key components to one's long term security in looking at retirement. He said that they have not emphasized 401 (k) because the base salary is the most important factor. He still thinks that 401 (k) is important, but the other two are more important, especially the base salary. He said that the intent is not to make the Board feel bad about where the County is on 401 (k) contributions in comparison with other entities. Commissioner Gordon would like to see what the State provides in terms of retirement. Elaine Holmes said that she would provide examples. The retirement formula is based on the highest 4 years of final compensation, the years of service, age, the amount of sick leave, etc. She will put together some scenarios. Commissioner Halkiotis assured the Board that his guilt has been lifted. He commended Elaine Holmes for this report. He wants to see the complete package of the comparison to State employees. He said that there are some instances where County employees have far better benefits than State employees. He is supportive of increasing the 401 (k}. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is intrigued by the idea of following the rate of increase in the County's revenues and the rate of increase in employee salary. He would like to look into this further. He would like to hear, even if it is a written comment, from the Employee's Consortium, what their highest priorities are. This will guide him in making a decision. He wants to encourage more communication. Commissioner Foushee also supported increasing the 401 {k} plan. 2. Recreation and Parks (a) Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan -Progress Report Recreation and Parks Director Lori Taft introduced Recreation and Parks Advisory Council member Tony Britt and Parks Services Director Dan Girby. These individuals served on the committee along with Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Halkiotis, John Link, and Gwen Harvey in working on this report about the strategic plan for park facilities and personnel for those facilities. She said that this is a draft of the strategic plan and a work in progress. They are working toward developing and including some of the comments and feedback given in the meetings of this committee. The summaries of the committee's work are included in the inside cover of the manual. She said that there is also a potential action item associated with this report, which is consideration of the Parks Conservation Technician that was pending since the last budget deliberations. Once the strategic plan for facilities and personnel is adopted, hopefully sometime later this spring, it could be a reference tool for planning and scheduling park development projects. Their objective is to provide safe and clean parks in keeping with the mission statement. Throughout the draft plan, needs have been identified for the entire department and not just for parks maintenance workers. The strategic plan will also be helpful in development of a natural parks element, an update to the 1988 plan, as part of the natural and cultural systems portion of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. The strategic plan looks at projected operations through the year 2020, which was the charge provided by the Board during the last budget cycle. The committee found it increasingly difficult to project this far. She made reference to the Little River Regional Park and said that they have learned from their recent experience. The public has been hungry for new parks. Visitors that have been interviewed indicated that they are delighted with the park. Most of the visitors come from Durham and Chapel Hill and many are from the immediate community. There is no other comparable legal area for mountain biking in the two counties. There is a seven-mile field network of mountain bike trails. There is also no comparable facility for horseback riding. She said that they ordered 1,000 maps of the park to be ready for the December 5th opening, thinking that this would be enough for a while. They ran out of them before January 1St. They are ordering another 5,000 maps. There are two full-time staff members assigned to the park, some temporary help, and they look forward to getting the assistance of a caretaker resident in the future. They are struggling to keep up with managing the visitors and getting things done. They are incurring overtime and the staff has been working on holidays. All visitors to the park are very satisfied with it, and the staff will keep working through the challenges. Not far in the horizon is the development of Twin Creeks Park. This district park is not as large in acreage as Little River, but it is much more complex in operational and maintenance needs. The projected needs are outlined on page 15 of the plan. The key in the timing for Twin Creeks is whether or not they can consider using the Cate's house as a visitor's center and an office and whether or not they could use the barn to house same equipment and run programs. Otherwise, facilities might need to be added in the master plan to serve these needs. She asked for some direction from the Board on this. The staff does not envision this property as a suitable location for a caretaker resident, due to the level of activity anticipated. Thus, they propose to use the Cate's house as a public facility. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the staff was envisioning someone living somewhere else on the property. Lori Taft said that she was not envisioning a caretaker resident on Twin Creeks Park. Lori Taft said that sections of the plan that have not been developed include areas for parks that were identified in the 1988 plan or that have not yet been acquired. There may be reason to revisit the census data and whether proposed parks need to be shifted or eliminated. The Recreation and Parks Department will continue to work with Environment and Resource Conservation and Planning Departments on the parks component of the natural and cultural systems element of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Gordon said that she would be interested in knowing the timeline for accepting comments because she did not have time to read the report in detail. Chair Carey said that they are only receiving this tonight as information. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this report needs to be studied carefully and that it is a work in progress. He remembers when he was elected in 1986 that citizens were complaining about extravagant purchases by the Recreation and Parks Director of some bamboo fishing poles. The bottom line is that the Board needs to figure out how to pay for all of this. For example, the annual operating costs far Twin Creeks is estimated at $500,000, which is equivalent to ~l cent on the tax rate. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he is not in agreement with Lori Taft that the house should be some kind of museum. He thinks that the homes should have a purpose that blends very easily into the affordable housing mission in the County and that blends into the mission of keeping an eye on valuable property. He said that the most giving thing to do to protect property is to have somebody living there and keeping an eye on the place. He thinks the plan is getting there, but the issue is whether the County can afford the plan. Chair Carey said that the Board could decide the timeframe and haw it fits into the other priorities. Jahn Link said that this draft has already been partially successful because it is making everyone think of costs. RPAC member Tony Britt commented that Lori Taft works very closely with their group, and this document reflects her progress in the right direction. He said that the RPAC has full confidence in Lori Taft and her staff. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners made a quick decision not to talk about a bond this year, but when they do talk about a bond, they may want to look at these projected costs in terms of a bond. The staff needs could also be phased in over a period of time. Chair Carey asked the Board's pleasure on the Parks Conservation Technician. Lori Taft said that she hopes that it is clear from the plan that there will be positions needed in the future. There is a need presently for more staff because of projects they are not able to accomplish with the current staff. Examples include Efland-Cheeks, Fairview, Northern Cedar Grove, and others. She would like the Board to consider this position tonight. Commissioner Halkiotis suggested adding this to the next consent agenda. He asked for clarification on something. He said that the grounds at the Southern Human Services Center are starting to look shabby. There are uprooted and dead trees and this needs to be part of the whole plan for facilities. He would like to see a breakdown of who is responsible for what in these areas related to parks. He does not understand where Recreation and Parks ends and Environment and Resource Conservation begins. John Link said that there was a discussion about this last week and that this needs to be expanded to include Public Works and Planning. Chair Carey said that John Link would articulate this about where one department ends and another begins and put it in writing. Commissioner Gordon asked when this Parks Conservation Technician position would begin. Lori Taft said that it would not start before March. Commissioner Gordon asked about the relationship with Durham County in terms of paying for the parks technicians at Little River. Lori Taft said that Orange County pays all of the operating costs, and Durham County reimburses Orange County 50% for staff. The Parks Conservation Technician position will be on the next consent agenda. {b} Resident Caretaker for Little River Regional Park Elaine Holmes explained the information that outlines the legal threshold of what the County could and could not do with a resident caretaker. There are two options -the caretaker would be an employee or a tenant only. In terms of the caretaker being an employee, there could be various types of duties that the employee would carry out. In terms of the caretaker as a tenant only, the work would be related to the residence and not to the park, but the objective would be to have a presence in the park. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was an analysis of the criteria for having a caretaker on a particular property. Jahn Link said that, regarding the Blackwood property, there should not be a problem having a person live there, but it becomes less clear in looking at Twin Creeks. Commissioner Jacabs said that this is a fundamental decision that must be made about these properties. He would like to hear the pros and cons, because his sense is that a property right near hundreds and thousands of people, like Twin Creeks, needs acaretaker on-site at all times more than Little River. Commissioner Halkiotis said that this is only a process and he would contend that "livable" could mean different things to different people. He would be more concerned about a piece of property in close proximity to a rapidly growing area than he would elsewhere. Commissioner Gordon agreed that there should be criteria in deciding whether a caretaker is needed. VIlhatever is done, the sites should be secure. Chair Carey asked that the staff bring back criteria proposals as soon as possible. John Link said that they could incorporate this in flushing out the strategic plan. Chair Carey asked about the questions that have been raised about the current mission and role of the RPAC and whether it is up to date. One member has resigned, recommending that the mission needed to be updated. Lori Taft said that the RPAC by-laws are out of date and were written prior to the existence of ERCD. Many responsibilities in the by-laws are performed by ERCD. They are looking for direction. Chair Carey said that the Board would want a recommendation on what a new charge could be. Commissioner Jacobs said that at the retreat, the Board asked for the RPAC to revisit the by-laws. Tony Britt agreed with Lori Taft and said that the duties and responsibilities of the department have changed since the original charge. They recognize the need and are working toward that end. Commissioner Gordon asked if they were going to meet with the other boards in the County and Lori Taft said that there was a joint meeting planned with the Commission for the Environment. Commissioner Jacobs asked that the Board get a copy of the agenda for this meeting. 3. Proposed Process -Natural and Cultural Systems Element of the Comprehensive Plan Environment and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil distributed a handout entitled "Natural and Cultural Systems Element" {purple sheet}. He said that one of the County Commissioners' goals that has been lingering at least since 1999 is to address the elements of the comprehensive plan that speak to natural and cultural resources. He gave some history of the comprehensive plan. He said that he tried, at the end of 2003 and early 2004, to think about how to go about doing this element. He said that the model that was used in the late 1980's was Morin County, California. He included same sections of the new Morin County plan in the agenda materials. This is just north of San Francisco. At the time, it was considered to be one of the best plans in California far counties. He said that the goal in early 2004 was to try and achieve the pieces missing related to natural and cultural resources. He would also like to engage the public as part of the process. He made reference to page 8 of the materials, which is a proposal faraway to accomplish this goal. Most of the activity would take place in 2005 and early 2006. The first phase would include the appointment of a Natural/Cultural Element Oversight Committee. He summarized the timeline as shown an page 8. He said that a lot of the pieces in this element will fit right in with the parks strategic plan. He said that his proposal is aggressive and moves the County away from an era of having large plans that no one can read to something that is more concise and still complex and consistent with the plan aver the last 15 years. Commissioner Gordon said that she likes the idea of having a more concise plan. She was involved in 1981 in the comprehensive plan and it makes sense to have these elements. She would like to streamline the process. She was thinking about the existing boards and the people on them and what it would take to have a super board. She suggested having the plans go to the appropriate boards and having an interim report come back to the County Commissioners. She does nat see why a super structure is necessary when the related boards are already in place. Commissioner Jacobs agreed and said that maybe the meetings could be scheduled as part of County Commissioner work sessions over the course of a year and the chairs of the advisory boards could all be invited. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the framework of a comprehensive plan with the various elements is vast. His interest is that there is a consistent framework. When he came to Orange County there were a lot of things on the shelf and many boards came up with goals and objectives that have never come to fruition. He thinks that there is some validity to creating asuper-element. He hopes to keep the overall planning framework in mind. Commissioner Jacobs said that if they follow the model of referring this to standing boards, it needs to be clear that it is a high priority because the boards already have other priorities. Commissioner Gordon said that it is true that these reports come up and nothing happens. There is some good work out there that can be built upon. One example is the water resources work initiated by the Water Resources Committee and the studies performed by the United States Geological Service (USGS). There were three USGS studies completed, and also a Water Resources Committee Report, all of which were completed by 2001. These studies still have not been implemented. The Commission for the Environment is very interested in this and will be coming forward with a Water Resources Initiative in the near future Dave Stancil said that this would fit into phase 2. Craig Benedict said that some of the land use and density issues and minimum lot size requirements reflect some of these previous studies. With nothing further to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board