Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080219 APPROVED 4/15/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, COUNTY STAFF ABSENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Jacobs said that Commissioner Nelson was ill, but was going to try and make the meeting. The yellow sheet was an additional resolution, item 3-d, Resolution for a Regional Value- Added Shared Use Food and Agricultural Processing Center. Chair Jacobs said that this should probably go on the consent agenda as item 4-p. The Board agreed to leave it as a resolution, item 3-d. The pink sheet relates to the item on the farmers' market. The light green sheets were for revised applicants for the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment. There were several handouts regarding the citizen survey on tax proposals for local revenue options. Chair Jacobs reviewed the water supply levels. Chair Jacobs suggested pulling item 10-d, Appointments for Durham Technical Community College, and adding it to the March 6th agenda. Commissioner Gordon asked to also defer the Orange County Planning Board appointments because the County is still advertising for this. Chair Jacobs said that there are plenty of applications for at-large. The Cheeks Township position could be deferred. Discussion ensued and the Board agreed to leave this item on the agenda until that point in the agenda. Geof Gledhill read a prepared statement with respect to a settlement and claim: "At one of your late 2007 meetings, during a closed session, the Board of County Commissioners approved the settlement of a claim relating to the installation of a well on property owned by Mr. Michael Todd Cooper. The claim resulted from the formal abandonment of a well serving Mr. Cooper's house after the house was destroyed by fire. As part of the rebuilding of Mr. Cooper's house a mistake was made and Mr. Cooper was advised that his new home was eligible to be connected to the new public water system built to serve the Buckhorn EDD; thus he abandoned his old well. Orange County contributed $2,566, approximately half of the cost, of a new well placed on Mr. Cooper's property. A copy of the settlement agreement is delivered to the Clerk to be included with the minutes of this Boardmeeting.^ PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public 2. Public Comments a, Matters not on the Printed Aqenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations! Resolutions! Special Presentations a. Presentation of 2007 The Board received the results of the 2007 Community Health Assessment. Health Director Rosemary Summers and Healthy Carolinians Coordinator Bobbi Jo Munson made a PowerPoint presentation. Healthy Carolinians of Orange County Healthy Carolinians of Orange County is a network of agencies and citizens partnering to promote health and wellness in our county WHAT WE DO •ldentify critical health needs in the community • Guide local planning efforts to improve health • Support innovative health programs • Advocate for health-promoting policies • Organize community health activities WHO WE ARE •A diverse group of people from civic groups, schools, churches, health care organizations, UNC Hospitals, UNC School of Nursing, UNC School of Public Health, and UNC School of Social Work, businesses, local government and health insurance companies —Currently 80+ members representing 40 different agencies and organizations and the community LEADERSHIP Healthy Carolinians Council •Governing body •Guides the work of the countywide partnership and oversees the work of the subcommittees •Helps select priority issues and organize community assessment Coordinator •Oversees day-to-day operations •Organizes the work of the partnership •Builds relationships and coalitions SUBCOMMITTEES 'Carry out activities of Healthy Carolinians of Orange County —Address priorities that come out of the Community Health Assessment —Made up of community members and agency representatives FUNDING 'Coordinator's position supported by Orange County Health Department —Project activities supported by grants and in-kind support 'Received NC Prevention Partners Award for Coalition Excellence —Completed 2007 Community Health Assessment —Secured over$40,000 in grants (State Office of Healthy Carolinians and KBR grants) —Participated in several community organizations' boards and committees 'Committee activities included... Focused on family violence prevention —Organized over 14 brown-bag lunches and 19 trainings held to improve recognition and response to domestic violence and child abuse 'Over 230 people have participated; over 65 different agencies represented—Held first annual Real Men Rock campaign to raise awareness and educate community about Shaken Baby Syndrome•Distributed shaken baby prevention materials to 100 providers and at least 1,000 parents Focused on adult health promotion —Held two worksite wellness workshops for employers —Created and distributed a recreation map —Promoted Eat Smart Move More and 5 fruits and vegetables a day campaign at local Farmer's Markets —Awarded grant to fund faith-based health promotion initiatives 'Launched an employee wellness program for Orange County employees COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT 2007 Community Health Assessment Findings LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH (chart) —top two were cancer and heart disease LEADING CAUSES OF HOSPITALIZATION (chart) —top two were heart related conditions and pregnancy and childbirth HEALTH INSURANCE AND HEALTHCARE (graphs) Medicaid (adults) •11,346 eligible (9.4% of OC pop.) Health Check (children's Medicaid)•6,793 eligible children •3,803 eligible received screenings Primary Care Physicians. 33.7 per 10,000 residents (8.8 statewide) • 16% are minority or ethnic physicians Dental • Only 4 private dentists and 4 public institutions accept Medicaid CHRONIC DISEASE •Death rate for all cancers decreased by 12% since 2001 ••Orange County has highest rate of breast cancer in state LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS The "Big Three" •Tobacco Use •Nutrition •Physical Activity Tobacco Use Who smokes? •12.8% of adults •5.7% of middle school students •12.2% - 13.8% of high school students' Nutrition •In 2005, 32.2% of adults ate 5+fruit and vegetables/day •37% said eat out 2-3 times per week •15% said eat out almost every day •64% thought their eating habits were good or very good Physical Activity (PA) •16.5% of adults reported no leisure time physical activity •19% of middle school and 16.8% of high school students report watching 3+ hours of TV/day Smoking Who smokes? •12.8% of adults•5.7% of middle school students •12.2% - 13.8% of high school students' •Tobacco Free Facilities •There has been an increase in the number of schools, hospitals, restaurants, and organizations going tobacco free Frequently Used Tobacco Cessation Resources • Doctor or nurse • Pharmacy • Health department • Quit Now NC • Church Nutrition •In 2005, 32.2% of adults ate 5+fruit and vegetables/day Barriers to a Healthy Diet • Hard to eat healthy • Time to prepare and shop • Cost • Few health choices when eating out • Don't know how to cook healthy (Orange County Community Health Assessment Survey results) Resident's Self Reported Nutrition Habits • 14% said "Excellent" • 64% said "Good" or "Very Good" • 16% said "Fair" or "Poor" (Orange County Community Health Assessment Survey results) Frequency of Dining Out by Residents • 21% said 1 or less times a week • 21% said 1 time a week • 37% said 2-3 times a week • 15% said almost every day (Orange County Community Health Assessment Survey results) Physical Activity (PA) •52% of adults report getting recommended levels of PA •16.5% of adults reported no leisure time PA ••84.2% of middle school and 72.2% of high school students get the recommended levels of PA/day ••19% of middle school and 16.8% of high school students report watching 3+ hours of TV/day Barriers to Increasing Physical Activity Levels • Lack of time • Bad weather • No desire • Aches and pains • Too expensive • Friends and family aren't active (Orange County Community Health Assessment Survey results) Vaccinations •99% of Kindergarten and 1st grade students are fully vaccinated •Need to continue to improve tracking of immunizations through NC Immunization Registry •30.6% of residents (62% were ages 65+) received flu shots Unintentional Injuries •Between 2001-2005, there were 75 MVAs deaths •Between 2002-2004, there were 214 alcohol-related MVAs (2.1% of all deaths) Community and Family Violence •In 2006, 1,284 children were reported for suspected child abuse, neglect, and/or dependency • 30% (385) were found in need of services Resident's Perception of Community and Family Violence •65% perceive weapons in the media to be a major problem • 35-42% perceive domestic violence, child abuse, sexual violence, elder abuse, youth access to weapons, weapons in schools, and gang violence to be somewhat of a problem Child Health •Low levels of lead screenings, especially in Medicaid population •Growing number of children at risk for being overweight or are overweight •High cost for child care Adolescent Health — 67% of high school students report never having sex — 22% high school students reported using condoms •One of lowest teen pregnancy rates in state at 21.5 per 1,000 Reproductive Health •It is estimated that 15-20% of adults suffer from mental illness ••°tl 2,880 children and adolescents in OC have mental health needs –Need for continuity between crisis and continued care services ••Larger agencies need to refer to smaller agencies to reduce waiting periods •Substance abuse is estimated to be the states costliest health problem •• Large percent of youth are using substances •• Lack of adequate,treatment centers/long waiting periods •• Lack of insurance coverage for treatment •Between 45 and 50% of residents receive water through a public water supply. These suppliers must meet state and federal drinking water standards. • Local standards for well construction have significantly decreased instances of fecal Coliform contamination in new wells. Lead Low levels of lead screening in OC•In 2006, 36% of children ages 1-2 enrolled in Medicaid were screened •In 2006, 4 children had lead levels greater than or equal to 10 Lead Low levels of lead screening in OC•In 2006, 36% of children ages 1-2 enrolled in Medicaid were screened •In 2006, 4 children had lead levels greater than or equal to 10 Waste Management • Orange County experienced a 46% reduction in per capita waste production since 1992 • 86% of survey respondents said they recycled •Low diabetes rates and high percent of individuals getting recommended screenings —Low smoking rates, increase in number of schools, hospitals, restaurants, and organizations establishing tobacco free policies —Lowest teen pregnancy rate in NC •Low prevalence of communicable diseases ••Low crime rates —Lowest unemployment rate in NC —Decrease in per capita waste reduction •Access to Health Care •Health Promotion (Obesity/Chronic Disease Prevention) •Mental Health •Substance Abuse •Transportation (particularly in Northern Orange County) •Domestic Violence •• Reducing Health Disparities Commissioner Carey thanked Rosemary Summers for her report and commended her staff and volunteers. He asked what she attributes to the steady decline in asthma and Rosemary Summers said that all healthcare providers have tried to focus on asthma in children. School nurses are an integral part of the process too. Commissioner Gordon asked for elaboration on the Eat Smart, Move More initiative and Rosemary Summers talked more about this. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 8:00:15 PM. Commissioner Gordon asked about the high breast cancer rate and Rosemary Summers said that one of the factors that she believes is present in Orange County is that there are better rates of screening and early detection of cancer than other counties. This might not be the only factor, and she wants to look at this more closely. Commissioner Carey said that he sees disparities in health throughout the state as it relates to minority males. He knows that it is not just in Orange County. He asked what is being done in Orange County to combat this. Rosemary Summers said that the Eat Smart, Move More minority churches project has been a good approach. She agrees that more effort needs to be put into this area. Chair Jacobs said that he has heard that institutional providers give worse care to minorities. He wonders if there has been any independent study of how UNC Hospitals works in terms of providing services to minorities versus non-minorities. Rosemary Summers said that the Health Department has not done this. The Health Directors statewide are working with the Hospital Association, and they hope to achieve more data out of the reporting systems to help get a handle on this. Chair Jacobs asked how Orange County's infant mortality rate compares with the state average and Rosemary Summers said Orange County is below the state average. The average in Orange County is seven per 100,000. Rosemary Summers recognized the staff effort went into this report. b. Resolution Acknowledging February 26, 2008 as "Spay Day USA" The Board considered a resolution declaring February 26, 2008 as "Spay Day USA" in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Chair of the Animal Services Advisory Board, Dr. Ross Oglesbee said that, because of the issue of animal overpopulation in Orange County, there is a subcommittee of the ASAB to address this issue. One recommendation is to join the United States Humane Society to participate in Spay Day. She said that the community has a spay/neuter fund that has been collected from an increase in license differentials of dogs and cats. As of January 1, 2008, there has been more than $10,000 contributed to that fund, The recommendation was made and endorsed by the ASAB to join with the United States Humane Society in having a Spay Day. There will be an educational component as well. The ASAB has been working with different departments to identify residents that are eligible to receive free spaying or neutering for 30 pets that would otherwise not be sterilized. She read the resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve a resolution declaring February 26, 2008 as "Spay Day USA" in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPAY DAY USA RESOLUTION WHEREAS, cats and dogs provide companionship to and share the homes of thousands of individuals in Orange County; and WHEREAS, humane societies and shelters throughout the country have to euthanize approximately four million cats and dogs each year, although many of them are healthy and adoptable, due to lack of critical resources such as money, space, and good adoptive homes; and WHEREAS, the problem of pet overpopulation costs the taxpayers of Orange County hundreds of thousands of dollars annually through animal control and sheltering programs aimed at coping with the unwanted and homeless cats and dogs; and WHEREAS, the Animal Services Advisory Board and the Animal Services Department have made addressing pet overpopulation a priority; and WHEREAS, the County has established a Community Spay/Neuter Fund to address the issue of pet overpopulation in the County; and WHEREAS, spaying and neutering cats and dogs, among other animal companions, has been shown to drastically reduce overpopulation; and WHEREAS, Animal Services is working with other County departments to spay and neuter thirty animals that may not otherwise be sterilized; and WHEREAS, spayed and neutered animals are less likely to have certain health problems or exhibit certain undesirable behaviors that can create community-wide problems and use community resources; and WHEREAS, veterinarians, animal care and control organizations; national and local animal welfare organizations; and private individuals worked together to ensure the spaying or neutering of more than 20,000 companion animals nationally through "Spay Day USA" in 2007; and WHEREAS, veterinarians, animal care and control organizations; national and local animal welfare organizations; and private individuals have joined together again to advocate the spaying and neutering of companion animals on "Spay Day USA 2008"; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby declares February 26, 2008 as "Spay Day USA in Orange County" and calls upon the people of the County to observe the day by having their own cats or dogs spayed or neutered or by sponsoring the spaying or neutering of another person's cat or dog. THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Resolution Celebrating the Centennial of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners The Board considered a resolution celebrating the Centennial of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and authorizing the Chair to sign. Commissioner Foushee read the resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve a resolution celebrating the Centennial of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and authorize the Chair to sign. RESOLUTION CELEBRATING THE NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS- 100 YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, NCACC, is an advocacy and service organization made up of all one-hundred (100) North Carolina Counties; and, WHEREAS, the active participation and engagement of all 100 counties have directed, strengthened and enhanced the NCACC; and, WHEREAS, the dedication and talents of individual county commissioners and county staff have led to the NCACC's success in advocacy, county-centered services and educational programs; and, WHEREAS, an informal agreement to form the association was made by a handful of county commissioners who, at the behest of Craven County Commissioner E. E. Foy, met in New Bern in 1908, to discuss county issues of common interest; and, WHEREAS, the first session of the unofficial association was held at the Atlantic Hotel in Morehead City on August 19, 1908, where C. E. Foy was elected as president; and, WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly passed an act on March 8, 1909 establishing the association on behalf of counties; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that, the Orange County Board of Commissioners recognize and celebrate "100 Years of Community Unity" in tribute to the centennial of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. This the 19th day of February 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said that he neglected to mention that County Manager Laura Blackmon was ill this evening. d. Resolution Regarding Regional Value-Added Shared Use Food &Agricultural Processing Center The Board considered a resolution: 1) Agreeing to participate in a regional, multi-county value-added shared-use food and agricultural processing center; 2) Formally allocating the former Orange Enterprise Building on Valley Forge Road in Hillsborough for development of a regional value-added shared-use food and agricultural processing center; 3) Recommending that the governing board of the Center become a 501(c)3; and 4) Requesting that equitable fiscal support among partners be pursued that recognizes the allocation of the Orange Enterprise building owned by Orange County. Chair Jacobs said that this is an outgrowth of the work session last week and is meant to reflect the discussion by the Board. The resolution is as minimalist as possible, understanding that there will be more discussion later. Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to discuss more specifics about the allocation of the Orange Enterprise building. She said that this is 4.6 acres with a building that is between $400-500,000 appraised value. If the County sold it, it could probably get about$1 million. She would like to add some specific language that the County agrees that the "shared monetary compensation of the Valley Forge property will be determined later." She said that it is not exactly straightforward how much it is worth. Right now it is stated that Orange County will lease this building for$1 a year. She wants to indicate to the other jurisdictions that the shared monetary compensation will be determined later. Orange County needs to receive monetary compensation. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve a resolution 1) Agreeing to participate in a regional, multi-county value-added shared- use food and agricultural processing center; 2) Formally allocating the former Orange Enterprise Building on Valley Forge Road in Hillsborough for development of a regional value-added shared-use food and agricultural processing center; 3) Recommending that the governing board of the Center become a 501(c)3; and (#4 amended by Commissioner Gordon) 4) Agreeing that the shared monetary compensation for the Valley Forge property will be determined later and request that equitable fiscal support among partners be pursued that recognizes the allocation of the Orange Enterprise building owned by Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said that the Board has heard from two counties and the hope is to get this item into the legislative package. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from December 11, 2007, January 15 (5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.) and 16, 2008 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments (1) Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee— Reappointment The Board reappointed Linda Bowerman to the Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee to a second full term ending January 30, 2011. c. Jail Inspection Report The Board received the jail inspection report for January 28, 2008 from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. d. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds The Board adopted a refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related to 52 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes. e. NC State Firemen's and Rescue Squad Annual Certification Roster The Board approved the certification requirements for the fire marshal and staff to participate in the North Carolina State Firemen's Association for the year 2007 and authorized the Chair to sign the certification documents. f. Encroachment Agreement for County Campus Network Fiber Connection The Board approved a Two Party Right-of-Way Encroachment Agreement among Orange County, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Town of Hillsborough that allows the construction of a bored pathway for County network communications fiber to connect the Gateway County Campus facilities and authorized the Chair to sign. g,, Cost Allocation Plan Contract The Board approved a contract for the preparation of the County's 2007 Cost Allocation Plan with Tim Mckinnie & Associates, Inc. and authorized the Chair to sign. h. Contract with RB Engineering, Inc. for Structural Engineering Services to Stabilize and Repair Barns at Future Park Sites This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. i. Bid Award for Two (2) 40 Cubic Yard, Front Loader Refuse Trucks The Board awarded a bid for the purchase of two (2) 40 Cubic Yard High Compaction Body Front Loader Refuse Trucks from Piedmont Peterbilt of Greensboro, North Carolina at a cost of $401,592 and authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork. L Contract Award, Construction Manager at Risk Services, Animal Services Facility The Board approved a contract with Clancy& Theys as Orange County's Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) for the construction of the site grading package for the Orange County Animal Services Facility at the Guaranteed Maximum Price of$1,308,733, subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney; and authorized the Chair to sign. k. Establishment of an Interlocal Agreement Committee for the Hillsborough Area- Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Phase II The Board established the IAC with six representative position slots, from Orange County for the Strategic Growth Plan Phase II and asked the Clerk to advertise and/or notify advisory boards for possible appointments. I. Sportsplex HVAC Equipment Replacement The Board approved a change order proposal for $377,022 requested by Orange County regarding the repair and replacement of existing mechanical systems equipment in the Sportsplex and authorized the Manager to execute the change order. m. Adoption of Reimbursement Resolution for Animal Services Facility This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. n. Amendments to the Orange County Ordinance Regulating Smoking in Buildings Owned by or Leased to Orange County and Motor Vehicles Owned by or Leased to Orange County The Board adopted the ordinance amendments with an effective date of April 1, 2008; requested that each municipality in Orange County adopt a resolution permitting the applicability of the ordinance within their respective municipality; and encourages each municipality to adopt an ordinance governing tobacco use in municipal buildings. o. Fiscal Year 2007-08 Budget Amendment #7 The Board approved budget, capital and grant project ordinance amendments, and updates to the County's current fee schedule for fiscal year 2007-08 for Department of Social Services, Department on Aging, Orange Public Transportation, Commissioner Contingency, Criminal Justice Partnership, Health Department, Housing and Community Development, Various, Emergency Services, Lands Legacy Capital Project Ordinance, Emergency Telephone System Fund, and Arts Commission. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA h. Contract with RB Engineering. Inc. for Structural Engineering Services to Stabilize and Repair Barns at Future Park Sites The Board considered authorizing the Chair to execute a contract with RB Engineering, Inc. to conduct engineering work, prepare construction drawings and specifications, and perform inspection services for two barns; the future New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm and the future Twin Creeks District Park; and authorizing the Manager to sign subject to final review by staff and County Attorney. Chair Jacobs said that this has been discussed in the past about the space needs that the Board wanted a thorough assessment of all of the park buildings and out buildings and the structural integrity, etc. He said that at one point it was discussed that a team would visit each site with a report and photographs but this has never happened. He would like to ask management to pursue this. Commissioner Carey said to be specific about what the Board asked for. Chair Jacobs restated that it would be a specific study of the structural integrity of buildings on park properties that have been purchased by the County and, for the houses, what is required to make them habitable. Secondly, he wants to know the plan for getting caretakers into those houses. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that the staff has been working on this the last several months and have done a good bit of work. He would be glad to report back on this. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the Chair to execute a contract with RB Engineering, Inc. to conduct engineering work, prepare construction drawings and specifications, and perform inspection services for two barns; the future New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm and the future Twin Creeks District Park; and authorize the Manager to sign subject to final review by staff and County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS m. Adoption of Reimbursement Resolution for Animal Services Facility The Board considered adopting a reimbursement resolution authorizing the County to reimburse itself for non-general obligation bond project expenditures incurred for the Animal Services facility prior to the actual issuance debt. Commissioner Gordon said that this is a resolution to issue debt in the amount of$8 million for the Animal Services facility, which is not quite the total cost of the facility. Donna Coffey said that the total cost is about $8.8 million. The $800,000 has already been paid for with pay-as-you-go money and includes the land and the planning. The $8 million would be for construction only. Commissioner Gordon said that the cost did go up$1 million, and though the Board has not adopted the CIP yet, she would have liked to see some value engineering to try and hold the costs down. She thinks that if the County allocates the $8 million, it will all get spent. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt the reimbursement resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for the Animal Services Facility. VOTE: Ayes, 4; Nay, 1 (Commissioner Gordon, because of the cost) v. Public Hearings-NONE 6. Regular Agenda a. Northern Buckhorn Community/Central Efland Sewer Expansion Project Update and Scheduling Public Hearing for Engineer's Report The Board received an update on the northern Buckhorn community/central Efland sewer expansion project; the draft or preliminary Engineer's Report for BOCC review; and a proposal to schedule the EPA-required public hearing for the Engineer's Report. County Engineer Paul Thames said that the Board asked for an update and this is on the last page of his memo to the Manager. The timeline runs from now until either late 2009 to spring 2010 to the final construction project. The first step is to get and approve the Engineer's Report, which has been submitted to the North Carolina Construction Loans and Grants Section. This will then go on to the EPA for approval of funding. The projected budget for this project is $4.27 million, which is approximately$1.7 million more than what was allocated. There are several choices as to how to deal with this. The size of the project can be reduced, additional grant funds can be pursued, the overage can be included in the rate structure, or money can be borrowed from future fiscal years to pay for the overage. The requirement for the County Engineer's Report is that the Board holds a public hearing. It has to be advertised for two weeks and the soonest it can be put in the paper is a week from tomorrow, February 27th. The Engineer's Report is a comprehensive document as to the layout of the sewer. The sewer layout fulfills commitments made to citizens of the northern Buckhorn community and to central Efland. However, it does not serve everyone in these areas, but those people who are accessible to a gravity system and who are within the sewer service area adopted by the Board some years back. Commissioner Foushee asked about the suggestion that the Board of County Commissioners could borrow from future fiscal years to cover costs. Paul Thames said that there is always uncertainty with costs with price increases, economic slowdown, rock, etc. Donna Coffey said that, as it relates to the CIP, the debt capacity does not start opening up until 2009-10. This could be discussed at the March 12th work session. Commissioner Foushee said that, with all of the delays on this project, this project should move forward. She said that someone on the Manager's staff needs to monitor this project, and the longer this is pushed out, the more unaffordable it will become. She would like the Board of County Commissioners to receive regular status reports. Commissioner Carey and Chair Jacobs agreed. Chair Jacobs said that it is shocking that only now the Board is hearing that a public hearing is required to access the federal funds when the federal funds were secured three or more years ago. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 4 at the bottom and the scope of the project and said that the Board can decide to pursue larger or smaller segments, but once the Board decides, it has to do at least that much and cannot do less. Paul Thames verified this. Chair Jacobs suggested that the public hearing date be April 1st, since it is a meeting that is in Hillsborough. He made reference to page 7 and the advertisement of the public hearing, and said that the introductory line should say, "the proposed project"may" involve the construction of," instead of"will" involve. Paul Thames said that the project, as far as the draft advertisement is concerned, is the entire project that is outlined in the construction plans and the Preliminary Engineer Report. The reason it is called a Preliminary Engineer Report is because if the Board decides to change the project, then it can. Chair Jacobs still wanted to change the word to "may." He also suggested that a copy of the report be given to Mr. Lloyd, who is a representative of Orange-Alamance Water System. Commissioner Gordon asked if the project could be divided into sections because the cost overruns are important and the CIP situation is very serious, since the debt capacity is maxed out until 2009-10. There are significant needs that are unfunded, including schools. She also asked about securing the necessary railroad right-of-way. Paul Thames said that the process has already started and involved some review of plans with the railroad about three years ago. Commissioner Carey asked if delaying the date would endanger the grant and Paul Thames said no. The grant money will not be available to the County prior to the beginning of the upcoming federal fiscal year, which begins in October. Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners are all concerned about$1 million cost overruns on anything. He said that the County Commissioners tried to get some assurances that the money would not go away, and Congressman Price secured the $900,000 and could not assure beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not go away, but he did not think that it would go away. Paul Thames said that he has had conversations with Construction Loans and Grants since Christmas, and his understanding is that the money is still there. Chair Jacobs said that this is one of the County's longest standing failed commitments as a Board of County Commissioners. He wants to clean up these things first and foremost. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to receive and review the County Engineer's update/status report; and receive and review the preliminary Engineer's Report; and approve a public hearing for the northern Buckhorn community/central Efland sewer expansion project Preliminary Engineering Report at the April 1, 2008 regularly scheduled BOCC meeting; and approve the draft advertisement for the Public Hearing, with the change on page 7 from "will" to "may." VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Local Revenue Options Referendum Decisions The Board considered decisions regarding what local revenue option(s) to include in a referendum to be placed on the May 6, 2008 ballot. Rod Visser said that he was here in the capacity of the Local Revenue Options Project Manager. He reviewed both options —either a %d-cent additional local option sales and use tax OR a land transfer tax of up to 0.4%. He said that the Board of County Commissioners can only implement one tax and the Board has decided to place this on the May primary. Last fall, the Board of County Commissioners created the local options revenue advisory committee and this committee has been educating itself on this topic. This committee produced an initial report to the Board of County Commissioners in the agenda packets with the pros and cons of these options. The Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on February 5th and also approved a survey by Hertzog Research LLC to survey 400 likely Orange County voters to get an idea about the opinions of the two options. The survey also included some questions about how residents get their information (news media, internet, etc.). The survey data is included in the packets also. There are three versions of the resolution that staff and the attorney worked on, with the notion that the County Commissioners will adopt one of them. Also, at the February 12th work session, there was a detailed discussion about the potential uses of the proceeds from the revenue options, and the Board agreed that it was important to have clarity and simplicity with regard to this. The Board asked the staff to put together an initial statement of intended uses as a starting point for discussion. Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board might want to refer to the items on the draft for March 6th, since there are 12 people signed up to speak to this item tonight. He suggested touching on the resolution, but it will be on the agenda for March 6th with discussion and decision. Chair Jacobs thanked the committee for the time put into this effort. Dr. Mark Hertzog, Principal of Hertzog Research, gave the highlights of the PowerPoint presentation. Citizen Survey on Tax Proposals Summary Presentation to the Board of Commissioners Executive Summary v About half of Orange County citizens likely to vote in the May 6 primary say they support a 0,25% sales tax increase on non-food items, while one-third are opposed, and the remaining one-sixth are undecided. • The two top reasons for opposing the sales tax are the belief taxes are already too high, and the regressive effect of sales taxes on those with lower incomes. • There is very little overlap between these two groups. Conversely, only one-third support a 0.4%land transfer tax, while a majority are opposed and the remaining 14% are undecided. • Those who say they definitely will vote in the primary are somewhat less strongly opposed to the land transfer tax than those who say they probably will vote—but neither group supports the measure. v That said, when asked to choose which one of the two taxes they would prefer to see enacted, regardless of how they voted, citizens split down the middle: 48%prefer the sales tax, and 43%prefer the land transfer tax. r Orange County voters predominately get local news through traditional print media and television. • Media usage differs significantly between the southeast (Chapel Hill and Carrboro) and the rest of the county. • However, the media one uses have no significant effect on how one views any of these tax options. v The strongest differentiator in the survey is the school district the voter lives in. • Those in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district oppose the land transfer tax by a five-point margin, but those in the Orange County school district oppose it by a 35-point margin. • On the sales tax, the districts don't differ significantly on whether it should pass. However, the overwhelming objection in the Orange County district is that taxes are already too high (61%); while in Chapel Hill-Carrboro, almost 30% cited the regressive effect on poorer families—only 8% of Orange County district voters mentioned this. • Given a choice between the two, a bare majority of Chapel Hill-Carrboro voters prefer the land transfer tax, while a substantial majority of Orange County district voters prefer the sales tax. • Significantly more voters in the Orange County district rely on television as a local news source, while those in Chapel Hill-Carrboro rely predominately on print media. • The News & Observer, The Chapel Hill News, and WRAL-TV News (in that order) are Chapel Hill-Carrboro's main local news sources, while WRAL-TV News, The Herald-Sun, and ABC-11 Eyewitness News (in that order) are the Orange County district's main sources. Likelihood to Vote S5. How likely are you to vote in the May 6g''primary? Definitely will– 68%; Probably will –21%; Might/Might Not– 11% (Would-be respondents who answered "Probably will not vote" or "Definitely will not vote"were excluded from the survey.) Vote on Tax Proposals –graph Sales Tax (N=394)– 46% said will vote yes, 4%were leaning towards yes, 17% were really not sure, 4% were leaning towards no, and 28% said will vote no Land Transfer Tax (N=395)– 32% said will vote yes, 2% were leaning towards yes, 14% were really not sure, 3% were leaning towards no, and 50% said will vote no Sales Tax Proposal .[If answered"No"or Leaning No":j Q2. What would your reasons be for voting "no"on the sales tax? 51% said the cost to taxpayers and taxes are too high. Land Transfer Tax Proposal v fif answered"No"or Leaning No":J Q4. What would your reasons be for voting "no"on the land transfer tax? 35% said the cost to taxpayers and taxes are too high Tax Preference Sales Tax–48%, Land Transfer Tax –43%, No Preference– 9% Tax Preference By School District Chapel Hill-Carrboro — Land Transfer Tax —50%, No Preference —9%, Sales Tax —41% Orange County— Land Transfer Tax— 36%, No Preference — 8%, Sales Tax— 56% Types of Local News Sources Print Media: CHCCS — 74% OCS —57% Television: CHCCS —40% OCS —57% Radio: CHCCS —22% OCS — 10% Internet: CHCCS — 15% OCS -21% Local News Sources: Print News and Observer—33% Chapel Hill News— 25% Herald-Sun— 21% News of Orange County— 11% Independent Weekly— 4% Carrboro Citizen— 3% Daily Tar Heel —2% Local News Sources: TV WRAL-TV News—27% ABC-11 Eyewitness News— 18% NBC-17 News — 13% News 14 Carolina —7% NC Now on UNC-TV —2% Local News Sources by School District News and Observer: CHCCS —45% OCS — 19% Herald-Sun: CHCCS — 14% OCS —27% Chapel Hill News: CHCCS —42% OCS - 7% News of Orange County: CHCCS —2% OCS —20% WRAL-TV News: CHCCS —22% OCS —32% ABC-11 Eyewitness News: CHCCS — 14% OCS —22% WUNC Public Radio: CHCCS — 12% OCS —4% WRAL.com: CHCCS —5% OCS — 11% Methodology y The survey questionnaire was developed by Hertzog Research in conjunction with the Orange County Manager's Office. • Telephone interviewing was conducted by Hertzog Research's fielding partner, FGI Research of Chapel Hill, N.C., from its interviewing facility in Virginia Beach, Va. v The county's current voter registration list was obtained from the Orange County Board of Elections. From this comprehensive list, a randomized sample of names was drawn and matched with listed telephone numbers. From this sub-sample the respondents were contacted. Respondents were screened to assure that they still live in Orange County, and that they at least might vote in the 6 May 2008 primary election. Those who said they no longer live in the county, or that they probably or definitely would not be voting in the primary, were excluded. • Completions were monitored to assure that the total sample closely reflected likely voter turnout, using the November 2006 general election as a baseline, by gender, race, age group, and geography. > A total of 397 completed interviews were obtained, using random sampling from the voter registration list coupled with completion quotas to assure that the sample broadly reflected the county's likely voter turnout by age, race, and gender. s, Extra effort was made to obtain responses from the 18-to-25 age group, who represented a disproportion of non-working numbers, and of persons without land-line telephones. v The only notable geographic variation from the expected results was a disproportion of respondents who said they were residents of the Town of Hillsborough, and/or of zip code 27278. y The overall sampling error for this survey is ± 5.0%. Results were tabulated by FGI Research. Further analysis was performed by Hertzog Research using SPSS software. Commissioner Gordon asked about the preference of 43% versus 48% and verified with Dr. Hertzog that this is statistically a tie. Commissioner Gordon asked if the questions were alternated (sales tax first, land transfer tax first, vice versa) and Dr. Hertzog said no, but there was a similar survey conducted in Durham County last year where the questions were alternated, and there was absolutely no difference in responses. Commissioner Nelson asked for access to the cross tabs with the age and gender broken down and Dr. Hertzog said yes. Chair Jacobs pointed out the longer version of page 9 that there is a breakdown of category by person. Commissioner Carey said that the Board received some information about exemptions and he asked Geof Gledhill to comment on this for the public. Geof Gledhill said that there are hundreds of exemptions to sales tax, including farm products and supplies, special interest exemptions, and many more. The significant exemptions to sales tax are food and medicines. The transfer tax exemptions are identical to the exemptions in existence for the excise tax on real estate transactions. The tax that is in existence now is 2% on the sale of a house and is charged to the seller. The exemptions for the excise tax and the transfer tax are transfers by governmental units (Orange County or the University); transfers by operation of law such as leases, transfers pursuant to a will or testament; gifts; merger or conversion of businesses; and deeds of trust. Chair Jacobs asked if a conservation easement was taxable and Geof Gledhill said yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Keith Dixon said that there is already a 0.2% transfer tax for land transfers, and the 0.4% is an additional percentage, which would be a total of 0.6% of the time of the sale. A person selling a $200,000 house at the time of closing would pay$1,200 in transfer taxes. He said that if these amounts are significant enough, it could cause a hardship to the seller. He said that the transfer tax focuses only on people selling property. It seems unfair to tax such a small group so severely. He said that a %4-cent additional sales tax is non-detectable, would not create a hardship for anyone, and would be paid by all citizens. With a l4-cent increase in the sales tax, a person spending $100 would pay an additional .25 of tax. A person spending $400 would pay an additional $1.00 of tax. He said that the sales tax revenue in the County has the potential for huge growth with additional retail space. Kenneth Johnson lives on Orange Heights Loop and he has an 80-year old friend who has been a farmer for many years and lives in a small cinder block house. He said that his friend's wife died this year and he is now selling off property to pay his taxes. He said that taxes are too high and the Board of County Commissioners wants to tax him more. He said that everything he has is taxed and now they are trying to tax intangible things such as satellite TV. He said that politicians are taxing people for everything. He said that the landowners want it on the sales tax and the salespeople want it to be on the landowners. He said to do the right thing and do not tax. Robert Gardinier read a prepared statement: "Subject: Local Revenue Options —Land Transfer Tax Reference: Example of the `Real Cost" to Property Owners of the Land Transfer Tax Option, attached. There is a distinct advantage to the "transfer tax" option for the property owners of Orange County that I have not heard discussed in the public forum and I feel that everyone should be made aware of it. This advantage is in addition to the other advantages, which include, particularly for new construction, having revenue income at the time that new construction comes on line and new demands are being placed on the infrastructure. The advantage I describe below will benefit all property owners (Farmers, families, etc.), particularly those property owners who maintain ownership over a longer time period. (i.e., a period of 10, 20, 30, or more years). This advantage is the fact that the "Real Cost"of the Land Transfer Tax can be less than the "Actual Cost" because the property owner will have had use of this money over the period of time he, or she, has owned the property. Therefore, this money can be invested, in an interest bearing account for example, which when compounded over the period of time of ownership, will reduce the "Real Cost" of the transfer tax at the time of sale. With the Sales Tax option, or the increase in Property Tax option, the money is paid out on an ongoing base and there is no opportunity for the property owner to put this tax money to work for him. Example: The attached example shows one way that a property owner might use this advantage. First let's define "Real Cost." The "Real Cost" of money is the total cost of the money used to pay for a given expense. The "Actual Cost" is the amount of money paid when the payment is due. Let's assume that a person buys property in Orange County for$130,000.00. They own the property for 20 years, and then sell the property, which has appreciated at a rate of approximately 4.3% per year, and is sold for $300,000. The Seller would pay a "Transfer Tax" of 0.4% ($1200.00), when the property is sold, which I am calling the "Actual Cost." During the 20-year period that the Seller owned the property, he did not have to pay any portion of"Transfer Tax," and if he wished, he could save $60 per year, for a total of$1200, in an interest bearing investment. If the seller invested $60 per year over the 20-year period, earning 4.0% per year, the value of the investment after 20 years would be approximately $1858.00. Therefore, after paying the $1200.00 transfer tax when the home is sold, the seller would have a surplus of approximately $658.00. Therefore, the `Real Cost" of the "Transfer Tax" to this Seller would be $541.000 ($1200.00 - $658.00 = $541.00), not the "actual cost" of $1200. One might suggest that, not everyone would invest the money in this way over the 20- year period, or have the means to do so. Another option that the Seller would have, since he has the use of this money over this 20-year period, would be to invest this$1200.00 to enhance the appearance and marketability of the property by investing in painting, landscaping, new appliances, or other improvements which may be needed, resulting in yielding a higher selling price for the property, and thereby recovering the transfer tax cost at the time of sale. Thank you for your time and consideration of this input." Ryan Miller said that he was born and raised in Orange County and is an Orange County educator, landowner, and part-time farmer. He said that he understands the need for a revenue stream, but he would prefer no new tax at all. He does not support the prospect of a land transfer tax. He said that he would support a sales tax to share the burden with all citizens. Non-residents that purchase taxable goods from the current and future stores in Orange County would also pay the sales tax. He said that he is also here tonight as the Cedar Grove Ruritan Club President. He said that the topic of the local revenue options is one of concern for the Cedar Grove Ruritan Club and community. He said that his club decided to facilitate a petition against the land transfer tax. He read it: "We, the undersigned residents and/or property owners in Orange County hereby express our serious concerns relative to the outrageously high property taxes in Orange County. We understand that to increase County revenues, there is a proposed land transfer tax. This is our opinion, that the land transfer tax is unfair in that only a small minority of residents, some being elderly, farmers, non-profits and others that might be forced to sell property to meet their needs. These people would have to pay this tax to benefit the majority, which would not be effective. We vigorously oppose such a tax and petition the Orange County Commissioners to dismiss this proposal." He said that in ten days they were able to get 1,567 signatures. He gave this petition to the Clerk. Bill Olsen thanked the County Commissioners for their deliberations. He said that he has a background in Chapel Hill and has worked here for 50 years in real estate business. He said that he attended a meeting recently and made a point about the land transfer tax. He spoke about usable/livable housing for seniors, which would be smaller one-story houses. He said that no one has addressed this issue. He said that the people that own small houses are starting to convert to larger houses and he thinks that the land transfer tax could cause more people to take a small house and add on to it. He thinks that this would further diminish the diversity of housing. Jesse Berry said that he appreciates the privilege and freedom to come and speak. He asked where this money was going to be spent from the land transfer tax. Chair Jacobs said that this would be discussed at a subsequent meeting. He said that if there is a need for this tax, then it is already known where it will be spent. He said that the public needs to know this. Sammy Martin said that he read in the paper that the Board of County Commissioners took with a grain of salt the results of a survey where it was claimed that realtors do not have the needs of school children at heart. He said that there is misinformation because the realtors do have the children's needs at heart. He encouraged the Board not to single out people who are being taxed just because they happen to structure their financial life around owning these properties. Margaret Misch said that residents need to support services administered by the County. She is a resident who pays sales and property taxes to Orange County. She believes that there is not the choice to increase its funding other than by a tax. She said that it is obvious that Orange County does need a source of revenue and she supports the one-time tax on land transfers. She thinks that it is a reasonable solution and does not place a burden on the less affluent that pay sales and income taxes. Mark Zimmerman said that he is President Elect of the Greater Chapel Hill Association of Realtors. He wants to respond to some of the criticism levied against realtors by some people in previous meetings and in the press. He said that he was quite pleased to hear the criticism. He said that a former teacher once told him to be happy when someone resorts to trying to make you the issue and it means they don't think they can win on the merits of the issue itself. He said that he is happy to hear the County Commissioners say the land transfer tax will hurt affordable housing. The realtors share this concern. He said that he is happy that the County Commissioners are trying to help affordable housing homeowners with the impact fee rebate program. This program is still limited, however. He is also happy to hear about the reluctance to increase ad valorem property taxes. The taxes on property are too high and he asked why the County Commissioners would want to add a new tax on property. He said that the transfer tax is just a property tax by another name. He said that he is not happy about the attitude that if the public could be educated then they would support the tax. He said that he is here because realtors care about the clients and customers. He asked the Board not to target people who have worked hard to improve their families' lives by becoming homeowners. The sales tax option is broad-based and has the support already. Mark Peters is the Chair of the Local Options Revenue Advisory Committee, but he was speaking for himself. He said that he has seen the pressures on the local government. He said that the committee pointed out economic development and the need for this and retail leakage. He said that the reality of the land transfer tax is that it will be difficult to pass in May. The biggest pro of the land transfer tax is that it allows people on fixed incomes to defer taxation. His recommendation is to put the sales tax on the ballot. David Neal said that he came in part to listen on this issue. He said that the transfer tax is a one-time tax and the likelihood of a successful education campaign between now and the primary is nil. He said that it is true that without an added tax the County will have to raise the ad valorem tax higher. He said that it would be very bad if the transfer tax got put on the ballot and failed, considering how few revenue options there are. Adam Klein read a prepared statement from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. He is Director of Government Relations and Economic Development of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce. Dear County Commissioners, On behalf of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and its membership, we ask that you vote not to hold a referendum and put neither the sales or transfer tax on the ballot in May. On February 6, the Chamber's Government Relations Committee discussed the potential ballot measure and the Committee agreed that neither tax increase was appropriate at this time. Instead, our membership believes there are other effective strategies to employ to generate new revenue. Specifically, we propose that the County pursue appropriate economic development and increase the commercial component of the tax base. Stimulating development in the long-identified economic development nodes would diversify the residential- heavy tax base, generate new jobs, and boost sales and property tax revenue. We thank you for considering our recommendations and hope that you will not include the sales or transfer tax on the ballot. Sincerely, Aaron M. Nelson Kevin Schwartz President and CEO Chair, Government Relations Committee Jim Postman is a general contractor and appraiser. He also serves on Government Affairs for the Appraisal Institute and North Carolina Professional Appraisers Coalition. He asked if the respondents to the survey were all homeowners. He said that talking to renters about this might not be the way to go. He said that he is more in favor of a sales tax and he thinks that it is better to spread it out. He said that in the two and a half years that he has lived here, he has not gone to downtown Chapel Hill for shopping because there is nothing down there. He suggested working on some economic development in places such as Hillsborough. Delores Bailey is Executive Director of Empowerment, Inc., a non-profit in Chapel Hill that provides affordable housing. She represents affordable housing and middle class and she asked the Board not to vote for the land transfer tax. Ben Nichols said that he helped to get a lot of names on the petition mentioned earlier, and those people will support the %4-cent sales tax. Bob Nutter said that he believes that the sales tax would be better than the land transfer tax for Orange County. Commissioner Carey asked if this item was to be brought back on March 6th and Chair Jacobs said only on the specifics but the Board has to vote on one or both tonight. Commissioner Carey said that the comments tonight and at other times from the public, have been helpful to him. He said that the survey did not persuade him one way or the other, but it did give him insight. He said that there are pros and cons and impacts with both of these options. He said that many have said the sales tax is fairer, but asking people who have no income or limited income to pay increased sales taxes is unfair. He is voting for the land transfer tax because you only pay if you sell the property, and there are exemptions. Commissioner Foushee agreed with Commissioner Carey and said that what the Board votes tonight does not levy a tax, but will put the question on the ballot. Commissioner Nelson asked what means are available for the County in educating the public. Geof Gledhill said that there are no restrictions on media outlet, but there are restrictions on spending public money in support of or against an initiative. Commissioner Nelson said that he supports the transfer tax because it is a more progressive tax and the sales tax hurts too many people. He does have concerns about putting this on the ballot in May, and he would like to offer to the committee to help create a plan to educate the public. He said that this needs to come back to the Board at its next meeting with a budget. Commissioner Gordon said that the land transfer tax is a more progressive tax and she would prefer it, but her concern is educating the public by May. Chair Jacobs said that the County is working very hard on economic development. Regarding retail leakage, if the County has to have the authority to pay for roads, he hopes to put up tolls at all exits where people are leaving to spend money in other counties. Regarding putting something on the ballot in May, he thinks that every six-month delay will cost the taxpayers of Orange County $1.5-2 million, depending on which option is used. He has found this a very difficult decision because it is almost a 50/50 proposition to him. He does not want to pay more taxes and the County needs relief from the property tax. He said that there will be consequences for each choice, but the land transfer tax is a more just tax. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve resolution B to put the land transfer tax on the ballot in May 2008. The amount of the land transfer tax would be set at 0.4%. A Resolution Regarding the Conduct of an Advisory Referendum on the Question of Whether to Levy a Local Land Transfer Tax WHEREAS, local governments in North Carolina have historically relief heavily on the ad valorem property tax as their major source of revenue; and WHEREAS, Orange County's reliance on the ad valorem property tax has increased steadily during this decade to the point that more than 69 percent of the County's revenue as anticipated in the adopted 2007-08 Orange County Budget Ordinance derives from this source; and WHEREAS, for a number of years, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and many other Board across the state have lobbied the North Carolina General Assembly for legislative authority to expand counties' revenue options and thereby to lessen counties' reliance on ad valorem property taxes; and WHEREAS, during the 2007 legislative session, the General Assembly granted counties the authority to enact new local revenue options— either a land transfer tax of up to .4% or an additional %-cent sales and use tax, but not both —subject to voter approval; and WHEREAS, without an alternative revenue source, various unfunded school and County capital needs will likely have to be delayed or funded through increases in ad valorem property tax rates; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2007 the Orange County Board of County Commissioners decided to seek voter approval of one or both local revenue options on the May 2008 ballot; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2008 the Orange County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing to seek community input regarding the revenue options prospectively to be placed on the May 2008 ballot; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to N. C. Gen. Stat. (symbol) 105-601, the Board directs the following advisory referendum to be held and, with the concurrence of the Orange County Board of Elections, to be held on May 6, 2008: 0 FOR 0 AGAINST Real property transfer tax at the rate of 0.4% of value or consideration. This, the 19th day of February 2008. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs asked staff to bring information back about the education campaign by March 6th Commissioner Gordon asked to include budgetary implications. c. Approval of Public Market House Market Manager Responsibilities, Market Vendor Rules, and Daily Fee for Market Vendors, and Creation of Public Market House Interim Oversight Committee The Board considered creating the Public Market House Interim Oversight Committee, approving the Public Market House Market Manager responsibilities and market vendor rules and setting a daily fee of$10 for the 2008 season for market vendors. Willlie Best said that this was discussed at the February 5th meeting and the Board asked staff to provide some rules and regulations, along with a temporary operational structure. Staff is recommending approval of the Market Manager responsibilities, Market House rules, a daily vendor fee of$10 for this upcoming season, and to create a Public Market Interim Oversight Committee. Commissioner Gordon asked how this compares to Carrboro's market. Mark Daniels said that the Carrboro market is a vendor-run board and citizens would run this board. Commissioner Gordon asked about the Market Manager and if this person would be a vendor and it was answered no. This is the only major difference. The rules are the same as Carrboro's. Commissioner Gordon asked how the staff intended to make this an interim oversight committee. Willie Best said that this operational structure will sunset February 19, 2009. Commissioner Gordon asked about the selection process and the first come first served basis. Mark Daniel said that it is not clear yet, and will not be decided until the Market Manager is hired. Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to consider a preference to Orange County residents for the Market Manager. She said that as long as vendors are being selected, they should be from Orange County. Willie Best said that, even though the abstract mentions 50 miles, staff has expressed an interest in Orange County residents. Chair Jacobs said that the Board could approve this, with a preference to Orange County residents. Geof Gledhill made reference to the Carrboro market and said that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen does not appoint the committee and neither does the Town of Carrboro employ the manager. This market is a vendor-operated market, the committee is made up of vendors, and the vendors pick the market manager, who is not a vendor. Chair Jacobs suggested naming the Orange County Farmer's Market and the fees should be made payable to this name and not to Orange County. He referred to the pink sheet about grant proposals for tourism for promotion projects in Hillsborough. There was $5,000 set aside last year for the Farmers' Market in Hillsborough, which was set aside due to the conflict that ensued. He has been assured by someone that is involved in this that the County could apply for more than $5,000 —up to $25,000. However, the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners would have to vote on it. He said that this is a great opportunity to have a partnership with another government and lower costs to Orange County and the vendors. The grant deadline is April 1St Chair Jacobs asked if there was any contemplation of a Wednesday market and Fletcher Barber said not at this time because of the construction. Chair Jacobs said that he is opposed to the rule of no pets. He suggested adding to the charge a fourth item, which is to make periodic suggestions throughout this first year regarding adjustments and improvements to the Public Market House vendor rules. Commissioner Gordon said that is already in there, and she read it. Commissioner Foushee agreed. Chair Jacobs said that he would leave it as is. Chair Jacobs suggested calling it Orange County Farmers' Market and direct staff to apply for this grant. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve creating the Public Market House Interim Oversight Committee, approve the Public Market House Market Manager responsibilities and market vendor rules and to set a daily fee of $10 for the 2008 season for market vendors, with the changes as suggested by Commissioner Gordon and Chair Jacobs (preference for Orange County residents, directing staff to apply for the grant, and changing of name to Orange County Farmers' Market). VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Resolution in Support of the Orange County Visitors Bureau Request for 1% Occupancy Tax Increase The Board considered a resolution based on a request from the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau Board that the Orange County Board of Commissioners increase the County's hotel occupancy tax by 1%, from 2% to 3%, as authorized in Senate Bill 622 of the 1991 Session laws. Laurie Palocelli, Director of the Chapel Hill-Orange County Visitor's Bureau, said that she is representing staff, the advisory board, and the hotel industry at-large, which has communicated to the Board the desire for a tax increase. She gave background on this tax. She pointed out that this is a tax that is paid by a visitor to Orange County when they stay at a hotel. The taxpayers of Orange County do not pay it. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve a resolution based on a request from the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau Board that the Orange County Board of Commissioners increase the County's hotel occupancy tax by 1%, from 2%to 3%, as authorized in Senate Bill 622 of the 1991 Session laws. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INCREASING THE ORANGE COUNTY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX WHEREAS, tourism is the number one industry in the southeast and the second largest industry in the state of North Carolina; and WHEREAS, according to NC Department of Commerce, tourism revenue in our county has increased from $67 million in 1992 to $137 million in 2006; and WHEREAS, a National Chamber of Commerce study compared the relationship between 100 manufacturing jobs to a community and 100 tourists and found that tourism produces significant revenues and is a clean industry because it requires little infrastructure, water or sewer and is a clean, non-polluting, non-consumptive industry; and WHEREAS, the Orange County region has seen a steady increase in hotels and now is home to more than 1,400 hotel rooms; 60,000 square feet of meeting space; 300 restaurants and 21 sightseeing venues and points of interest; and WHEREAS, marketing to the tourist and leisure traveler; selling our community to the conference, sporting and special event community; and servicing the leisure travelers and conference attendees has shown to provide a strong return on investment for our tax base and sales and occupancy tax revenues, while employing more than 1,700 residents; and WHEREAS, increased funding through a 1% occupancy tax increase will provide an opportunity for marketing initiatives that will increase tourism and hotel and ancillary spending in our county; and WHEREAS, Orange County is being significantly outspent by competing tourism agencies in surrounding and regional counties and the addition of new hotels in the Triangle has begun to erode occupancy and revenues for Orange County properties; and WHEREAS, the funding of the Visitors Bureau does not impact property owners but is funded through a tax collected at hotels from visitors; and WHEREAS, Orange County hoteliers have lent their support to this 1% occupancy tax increase; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 622, Chapter 392, of the 1991 Session laws makes provisions for the Orange County Board of Commissioners, by resolution, to levy a room occupancy tax of up to three percent (3%) on any accommodation in the County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners strongly endorses a 1% increase to the Orange County Hotel Occupancy tax, bringing the tax up to three percent (3%) on the gross receipts derived from the rental of any room, lodging or similar accommodation in the County. This the 19th day of February, 2008 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Reports a. Animal Co-Location at Emergency Human Shelters The Board received an update on initial discussions surrounding the possibility of building the capability to open and manage pet co-location points at emergency shelters in Orange County and seek feedback and direction from the Board. Animal Services Director Bob Marotto made a PowerPoint presentation. Pet Friendly &Co-Located Shelters In Orange County: An Interim Report "I keep seeing these (evacuation centers) in the news...you never think you'll be needing the darn thing." - San Diego Resident after the 2007 Wildfires Current Practice in OC Co-Location Defined Co-location is where the shelter site accommodates animals as well as people at the same facility in a format is determined by the participating agencies. Illustrative Standards of Implementation The following are examples of standards implemented in other areas: • Only select species are allowed, e.g,, dogs, cats, and so-called pocket pets • Animals must be healthy and owners must present documentation to demonstrate current vaccination, • Only the owner of an animal or a pre-assigned designee may access an animal for the purpose of care and exercising the animal and only during posted hours. Advantages to Co-Location • Those who might not seek shelter because of their pets may now choose to go to shelters • Many people find comfort and relief in caring for their animals in the stressful shelter environment • Reduced load on the animal services staff and existing animal shelter facility • All materials can be stored away from the shelter site and opened only in the case of an imminent threat. CAMET Co-location Supporting Agencies State Agencies • North Carolina Division of Emergency Management • North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Safety • North Carolina State Animal Response Teams • North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Providing: • Model Plans • Site Visits • Forms sets for all facets of management • Training • Companion Animal Mobile Equipment Trailers (CAMETs) "Although it was not an official evacuation site, the San Diego Parks Department stepped up when they realized that many of us had no choice, providing for animals and humans alike." Letter to the Editor— San Diego Union Tribune Bob Marotto said that all agencies are positive in indicating that people would like to pursue this further. The co-location model brings pets to the same facility as their human counterparts, but keeps the pets and their people in separate locations on-site. He said that there is a lot of support for co-location versus separation. He said that the model that is being used presently in other places is called the Companion Animal Mobile Equipment Trailer. These are trailers that store non-perishable equipment that is required to house animals at a Red Cross facility. These facilities are running about$17,000. Chair Jacobs said that this would be put on a future agenda for some Board direction. 8. Board Comments None 9. County Manager's Report None 10. Appointments ALL DEFERRED a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee — New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee. b. Agricultural Preservation Board — New Appointment The Board was to consider making a new appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board. c. Commission For Women — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Commission for Women. d. Durham Technical Community College (DTCC) —Trustee Appointments The Board was to consider appointing one volunteer to the Durham Technical Community College Board of Trustees. e. Hillsborough Board of Adjustment— New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Hillsborough Board of Adjustment. f. Local Revenue Options Education Advisory Committee The Board was to consider making appointments to the Local Revenue Options Education Advisory Committee. ,g_ Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. h Orange County Planning Board — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Orange County Planning Board. i. Transportation Services Board — New Appointments The Board was to consider making new appointments to the Transportation Services Board. 11. Information Items • Plans for the Upcoming Relocation to the Gateway Center • BOCC Candidates Information Packets (Available Upon Request from the County Manager's Office) 12. Closed Session-NONE 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board