Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-12-2013 APPROVED 4/23/2013 MINUTES JOINT MEETING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MARCH 12, 2013 5:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint meeting with the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs, and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below). AHAB MEMBERS PRESENT: Jonzella Bailey-Pridham, Patsy Barbee, Diane Beecham, Katherine Doom, Nannie Richmond, Arthur Sprinczeles, James Stroud, Andrew Shannon AHAB ABSENT: HOUSING, HUMAN RIGHTS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Tara Fikes, Director I. Introductions and Opening Comments Chair Jacobs welcomed everyone and introductions were made. AHAB Chair Patsy Barbee reviewed the following goals: Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals Housing Overarching Goal: Opportunity for all citizens of Orange County to rent or purchase safe, decent, accessible, and affordable housing. Housing Goal 1: A wide range of types and densities of quality housing affordable to all in all parts of the County. Housing Goal 2: Housing that is useable by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability or circumstance. Housing Goal 3: The preservation, repair, and replacement of existing housing supply. Housing Goal 4: Development ordinances and incentives that promote inclusionary practices and housing options for all income levels. Patsy Barbee said that the 2012/2013 work plan includes implementation of a media campaign that will stimulate conversation regarding the need for affordable housing in the community. This campaign will target the county and the towns of Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Carrboro. She said that efforts will include brochures and the use of social media. Other work plan items include encouragement of expenditure of unspent funds from previous bond referendums and continued recruitment of advisory board members. She also reviewed concerns and issues for the coming year. These issues include: exploration of a future bond referendum for affordable housing, the northern Orange County options, and mobile home standards. z 'ommunity Home Trust - Housing Bond Program- Greenbridge Tara Fikes, Housing/CD Director, said there is a letter in the Commissioners' packet, dated Dec. 18th from Robert Dowling of the Community Home Trust (CHT). She noted that this is one of two letters asking that a portion of the county bond funds be set aside for anticipated repairs at the Greenbridge Condominiums in Chapel Hill. She said that this property was one of the inclusionary developments and has 15 condos that were sold to low income households. It was later discovered that the HVAC systems installed there are problematic, no longer under warranty, and very costly to replace. She said that the thought is that if some repairs can be done, the units may last longer. She referred to a letter from Attorney David Brooks, explaining what happens in the event of foreclosure and its impact on the warranties. She said that it has been requested that$75,000 be set aside for these anticipated repairs Commissioner Rich asked if these units will be replaced with longer lasting units that are not as costly to repair. Commissioner Gordon arrived at 6:08 PM . CHT Executive Director Robert Dowling said that the problem is that the units are no longer being made and when some units at Greenbridge broke down, someone cannibalized the parts from the unsold units to fix them. This meant that when those units were sold, the cannibalized units had to be replaced with a compatible system. He said that compatible replacements will be more reliable, but not as efficient. Chair Jacobs asked how much is being spent per existing units to fix the systems and how many units $75,000 will cover. Robert Dowling said 15 units will be fixed. He said new systems costs around $11,000/unit now but will likely cost more in the future when replacement is needed. He said the $75,000 is being requested with the thought that it will provide a $5,000 down payment toward the future cost of a new unit for each of those 15 units. Chair Jacobs asked if this will proactively replace all 15 or just the ones not functioning. Robert said none will be replaced until necessary. Tara Fikes said the $75,000 will be used for repairs to extend the life of the units. Arthur Sprinczeles questioned how repairs can be made if parts are not available. Robert Dowling said it is complicated. He explained that the sensors can be replaced and this had been done in several instances over the winter. He said that the vision was that the $5000/unit x 15 units will be put into a stewardship fund, and when a unit breaks, the $5000 can be put toward a new unit. Commissioner McKee asked if there is any way to disassociate the individual units from the linked system as they break, replacing them with new individual units. Robert Dowling said this can be looked into. Frank Clifton said the units were not selected by the county. The developer put "green" units into the project and the county and town had no role in selection of this. He said this situation should be considered in future discussions about housing inventory. Commissioner McKee clarified that he is not criticizing any county actions. 3 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board needs to re-visit the policy of this model with high end condo units and the sustainability issues that come with requiring unit set-asides. He said that integrated housing is desired, but issues like this and problems with homeowner association dues can outweigh the different price point units. He said there should be more control over how the units are designed and function in the future. He said the Board needs to really look at how it is using financial and political resources. Commissioner Rich said this discussion always occurs when development projects come forward. She said that the affordable housing program always wants units, but a plan needs to be made that considers a balance of the issues. Commissioner Dorosin said the lesson learned with Abby Court is that the homeowners associations are controlled by the majority of the unit holders; and the majority is not the affordable housing residents. This means that those low income residents are at the mercy of the association. Chair Jacobs said Orange County government does not require any condo units; that is done by the towns. He said Robert Dowling did ask the towns to re-visit this issue. He said unless they engage the municipalities in this discussion, affordable housing in the southern part of the county is not under the Board's purview. He said perhaps promotion of high density housing is desired so that affordable units are possible; however this means the Board needs to have its own policy. He said that, with this building, he would like to see if there are any other systems like this that will become an issue a year from now. Commissioner Rich said the Bosch washers and dryers are the same situation. Chair Jacobs asked if anyone has done a comparative analysis of the pitfalls of these units, Robert Dowling said an analysis has not been done. He said there has been a transfer fee tax implemented that will support affordable units, and as units sell, these fees will help. He said that there will be special assessments and there is money for some of these unknowns, but there is not enough money to pay for the HVAC units. Commissioner Price clarified that if the Board goes along with this request, the money will pay for new units, not repairs. Robert Dowling said CHT could handle the small repairs. Katherine Doom said AHAB did ask extensive questions during their tour of Greenbridge. She said that there are no good answers here. She said AHAB spoke with owners of units and saw both a low end and a high end unit. She acknowledged that there is not a good way to resolve this issue. Tara Fikes said the recommendation of AHAB is for these funds to be set aside for the requested services. She has talked with the Orange County Finance Director, who said it is okay to move forward. She said the recommendation is for approval of the requested funds. Katherine Doom said there was no way to avoid hurting the homeowners if the funds are not approved. Commissioner McKee said Robert Dowling mentioned another style that could possibly be put in the units. He requested that Robert Dowling let the Board know the answer as to whether this could be done. - HOME Program — Live/Work and First-time Homebuyer Requirements Tara Fikes said the second letter in front of the Commissioners came from CHT and highlights the difficulties CHT is having in selling homes. She said the request is for the HOME review committee to be relieved of the Live/Work clause (having to work and live in Orange County). She said the request is that if a buyer cannot be found in Orange County within 90 days, CHT would like to look outside of Orange County to broaden the pool of purchases. She said there is also a request to waive the first time home buyer requirement after 90 days. She 4 said the Home Review Committee has discussed this and Commissioner McKee represents the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on this committee; however she wanted to share it with the whole board. She noted that CHT is having significant difficulty in selling properties. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the HOME committee has a position on this issue. Tara Fikes said the committee was willing to waive these requirements and review in a year to see if it made a difference in sales. Commissioner Dorosin asked if AHAB looked at this issue and does it have a recommendation. Tara Fikes said no, the AHAB has not looked at it. Commissioner Rich asked if this had gone to Chapel Hill Town Council yet. Robert Dowling said it has gone to Chapel Hill, but they have not responded yet. Commissioner McKee said there was reluctance to do this because of the precedence it would create; however there was recognition of the decline in the housing market. He said the general sentiment was to move forward with implementing the 90 day waiver and look at it again in a year. He said these units need to be occupied and it would be great to have residents from Orange County, but this other route is best in the meantime. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there has been any effort to approach another local bank to see if there could be some help with the borrowing issues. Robert Dowling said yes. He said when he went to the Chapel Hill Council and made this request, he was told that he faced so many obstacles that he had no control over. He said a council member encouraged him to come forward with bigger plans and be very real with the Town Council. He has done this, but has not received a response yet. He said he has talked to many banks, but they don't seem to like the CHT model, because their collateral is the lease hold interest in the property and there is no knowledge of this worth. He said the banks want the property itself in the event of foreclosure, rather than the lease hold interest, in order to lend money. He said this is what CHT has to discuss as a committee because this would mean the properties would be lost in the event of foreclosure; however, this may be the way things have to be done in order to move forward. Commissioner Pelissier said she is fine with waiving the requirements, but she feels priority should be given to Orange County residents who might have just moved here. Commissioner Price asked if CHT has had people from outside of Orange County requesting housing. She also asked about prioritizing people who are born and raised in this county and want to come back. Robert Dowling said it will not make a big difference if they waive these requirements. He said they occasionally do come across someone who could purchase the home but is unable to because of the requirements. He said this will help with those occasional situations and clarified that there won't be any recruiting in other counties Commissioner Gordon said that she hears the information with concern. She said, having been around when this program was instituted, she knows that these rules were put in place for a reason. She said the goal was to help individuals in Orange County, who might not otherwise be able to live here. She said that if these rules are eroded, it raises the question of whether the goals of the program are being met. She said that this should be for people with some commitment to Orange County. Commissioner Dorosin said he feels these requirements should be jettisoned. He said that the program still targets low income residents and once the person has bought the property, they become an Orange County resident. He noted that these residents will then shop here and pay taxes here, and that these residents tend to stay. He asked if CHT has considered converting these properties to rentals. 5 Robert Dowling said this had been considered but there are complications, including; subsidy money in the property, restrictive special use permits, and workload of rental management. Chair Jacobs said he appreciated Commissioner Gordon's comments but he agrees with Commissioner Dorosin. He said that he defers to Robert Dowling's expertise and he feels there needs to be more flexibility. He suggested that a date six months from now be chosen and a report be given at that point to see how things are going. Chair Jacobs suggested that, at some point, Robert Dowling share with the full board the points he made at a past Assembly of Governments meeting. He said this would give a more comprehensive look at the issues that CHT and affordable housing in general, are facing. Frank Clifton noted that Robert Dowling had already said the current model was created 15 years ago and it is not currently working. He said that he understands that CHT does not want to do rentals, but when the units sit empty for 6 months, it becomes a philosophical issue, and perhaps there ought to be rentals in order to generate income. He said there ought to be a more in-depth discussion about these things to decide on the key priorities. He said there are going to be fewer and fewer federal dollars over time and so there needs to be an analysis of how to get the best bang for the dollars that are there. Commissioner Gordon said it is a good idea to go back and look at the model again. She said that goals and priorities need to be examined again and the incremental changes being discussed at this meeting don't get at the basic issues. Affordable Housing Awareness Campaign AHAB Member Katherine Doom said that a UNC marketing class took up this cause as a case study in class and surveyed the community about affordable housing. This survey revealed a general lack of awareness of the issue. She said that the class put together an awareness campaign, which initiated AHAB to begin a media campaign through Facebook to raise awareness about the issue and the opportunities in the county. AHAB manages the page and plans on posting meeting information, and special events and opportunities. There is also a brochure planned on affordable housing. IV. Proposed Affordable Housing Clearinghouse AHAB Member James Stroud distributed a hand out on the Clearinghouse. He said the goal is to impose this clearinghouse to have a catch all, one stop shop for all things regarding affordable housing. He referenced a copy of the business statement and said the current goal is to develop a committee to come in and assist in the design of a clearinghouse. He noted that the Center for Home Ownership has received national accreditation from the National Community Re-investment Coalition, so the capacity is there for this project to be pulled together. V. Other Discussion Items VI. Closing Statements Chair Jacobs suggested a work session with affordable housing in October with a longer time for discussion. VII. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 6:59 PM . APPROVED 5/7/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR/ CIP WORK SESSION March 12, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a Regular/CIP Work Session on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price, and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Michael Talbert and Clarence Grier, and Clerk to the Board Donna 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. Planning Director, Craig Benedict introduced himself and the other members of the team. He said that some things have changed with the Jordan Lake Partnership and it is moving more into the planning and inspections department phase. He referenced new maps given to the Commissioners and reviewed the following PowerPoint Slides: 1. Jordan Lake Water Resource Allocation Topics JORDAN LAKE PARTNERSHIP & Water Supply Allocation Process A. Background • HOW we got here? • State DENR Opens Jordan Lake Additional Water Supply Allocation Request Process • Jordan Lake Partnership (JLP) MOU 2/17/2009 • Partners includes Orange, Durham, & Wake County & Cities • Pre-Application Process • Standard Demand and Supply Assumptions DENR Application Contents I. Water Demand Forecast II. Conservation and Demand Management III. Current Water Supply IV. Future Water Supply Needs V. Alternative Water Supplies VI. Plans to Use Jordan Lake B. Infrastructure Engineering Study • WHY do we need to do this? And WHAT is it? This study determines: • Feasibility and design • Pipe sizes and distances • Various water system models - From: Source(s)(Jordan Lake or other) - Thru: Water Resource Partners (Durham, Hillsborough, OWASA, etc.) - To: EDD Customer Zones Orange County Growth Pattern (map) Future Land Use Map of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan (map) Untitled Table Untitled Table Jordan Lake Water Sharing Agreements (map) Potable Water Interconnections —Jordan Lake Partners (map) Untitled Map Draft Application Guidelines for Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation (Table) Draft Application Guidelines for Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation (pg. 2 Table) Study Issues Infrastructure Engineering Analysis • Existing and Necessary • Bolster Jordan Lake Application Request • Non-Utility Entity is Unique Situation • Further Dialogue and Partnerships with Local Utilities and Cities C. Next Steps Further Discussion at March 12th BOCC Work Session • Orange County Draft Jordan Lake Application Due ARrW Probably October 1 st ■ Add the Engineering Design OC Share ($49,901) • 2013-2014 Budget Process • Final Draft Application Due 'uly 1,2013 Early Next Year Comments/Questions: Craig Benedict, during the presentation above, said that it is not known how much water is in a future allocation request and this may delay the application request. He said some forecasts estimate usage at 70 gallons per person per day, which is reasonable. He said this is a raw water supply, which is 20% higher than finished water. He said there have been 13 entities involved in this process. He said water resources are scarce in the triangle, which makes this necessary. He said that there is need for an engineering study to see how water is moved around. He reviewed the Growth Pattern map and said the green area represents 84% of the county and is the area not intended for public water and sewer. He reviewed the Future Land Use Map and said the purpose of this is to designate urban growth boundaries, and the 8,000 acres of land that are not in the ETJ areas of Durham, Hillsborough, or Mebane. He reviewed the chart outlining the use designations and zoning districts of the acreage. He said some of the information in the chart contains assumptions used to develop the water usage needs. He said the multiplier designates how much acreage could be developed and not be encumbered by environmental issues. With residential areas the PPH is for persons per household and the APH is households per acre. In non-residential areas the GPA is for gallons per acre. Craig Benedict said the next chart shows the math behind the numbers. He said this is adjustable if needed and is just part of the start of the application process. He said there is ongoing discussion regarding interconnection and pipe sizes. He said that part of the interconnection study will look at not only where water is taken from, but where it is released to. He referenced the Draft Application Guidelines and said that the state will likely not just accept this request without asking about what other water sources have been looked at. He said other resources are being considered, analyzed, and discussed. He said there will need to be collaboration with the utility partners in this process. He gave timelines of October 1 for the draft application, and early 2013 for the final draft. He said there is a lot of work to be done on a state level to determine the actual safe water yield of Jordan Lake, before making water requests. He said that work will be done in partnership with utility partners in Durham, and Mebane. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the application just comes from Orange County and partners are just part of the collaborative process. Craig Benedict answered yes and said that the 8000 acres of urban area are outside of the ETJ of Durham, Hillsborough, or Mebane so those water supply plans do not include water resource allocations. He said he feels that water should be tied into the current utility agreements. Chair Jacobs noted that this was all based on Orange County's increased water request and increased financial commitment, which makes for a more rigorous process. Commissioner Rich asked if all new agreements will be drawn up. Craig Benedict said not necessarily, that a determination will be made, of the best way to handle this with their partners. He said that the Jordan Lake application might be as simple as a memorandum of understanding with the City of Durham. Commissioner Rich asked how long the agreements are written for. Craig Benedict said the agreements with Mebane and Durham are unlimited. He said that in the case of Mebane, there is an unlimited agreement for a certain area and water allocations have been reserved for ten years. He said that things might have to be made more finite with the utility providers in the future. 2. Upper Neuse River Basin Association/Falls Lake Watershed Rules Dave Stancil, Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) said there is a long history of water protection in Orange County and the discussion tonight will be regarding the Upper Neuse and Falls River Lake Watershed area, which includes: Cedar Grove, Little River Township, Efland, Hillsborough and points east. He referenced several letters at the Commissioners' places that are related to both Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. Tom Davis, Water Resources Coordinator, presented the following PowerPoint presentation, which is included in the Item 2 abstract: - Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) update - Slide 1 (map) - DWQ Monitoring of Falls Lake Indicates Nutrient Over-Enrichment Problem - Slide 2 (Map- chart) - UNRBA Response: Path Forward Process — Slide 3 "The Path Forward" process will re-examine the Stage II nutrient reduction requirements of the Falls Lake Rules while preserving use of Falls Lake as a water supply. (Graphic) - UNRBA— The Path Forward Process — Slide 4 Consult contracted to support re-examination of efforts. Has completed 4 tasks designed to inform process of examining Falls Lake Rules: 1. Develop framework for re-examination of Stage II of Nutrient Management Rules 2. Review existing data, summarize lake and watershed info. 3. Review methods for delivered and jurisdictional nutrient loads 4. Recommend future monitoring and modeling - UNRBA— The Path Forward Process — Slide 5 (Chart) - UNRBA— The Path Forward Process — Slide 6 (Chart) - UNRBA— The Path Forward Process — Slide 7 What is Orange County likely to achieve via the Path Forward Process? • Re-evaluation of Stage II nutrient reduction goals. • Additional BMPs for use by agricultural community in urban areas. • Information concerning jurisdiction loading and nutrient sources. • And more... The Consensus Principles — adopted by the BOCC in 2010 included the following: "The affected local governments should share resources and assist with funding for the examination for the Nutrient Management Strategy." - UNRBA— The Path Forward Process — Slide 8 Questions and Discussion Tom Davis said the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) is comprised of local governments located in the Falls Lake watershed, plus South Granville Water and Sewer Authority (SGWASA). He said that the first slide denotes that approximately half of Orange County is in the Falls Lake watershed and he noted that Falls Lake is shown in red, indicating that it is rated "impaired" by the Division of Water Quality. For this reason, the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy, or Falls Lake Rules, was adopted in 2010. Referring to slide 2, he said that the impairment of the lake is caused by too many nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in the lake. Nutrient sources include: storm water from development, agricultural runoff, wastewater treatment plants, DOT property runoff, state and federal property runoff, forested land runoff, as well as atmospheric deposition of nitrogen. He said that the goal of the rules is to restore water quality throughout the lake and he noted that DWQ modeling indicates significant reductions in nutrient runoff are needed to restore the lake. Warmer colors on the map on slide 2 indicate greater impairment in the Upper Lake than in the Lower Lake. He said that it is anticipated to be very expensive to comply with rules as they are currently written, and it is estimated that the cost will be greater than 1.5 billion dollars. Referring to slide 3, he said that given the projected cost, as well as uncertainties with the lake modeling completed by the Department of Water Quality (DWQ), the UNRBA has embarked on a process called The Path Forward. This process will re-examine Stage II of the Falls Lake Rules while preserving the lake as a water supply for the City of Raleigh. He said Stage II of the rules will be in effect from 2021 to 2036 and Stage I is in effect currently. He said the Path Forward Process was conceived shortly after the Falls Lake Rules were finalized, and the Process is outlined in the document titled The Consensus Principles, which is included in the materials provided to the Board. He said that the UNRBA hired a consultant in 2011 to initiate the Path Forward process. He said this consultant has completed the 4 tasks outlined on slide 4 to provide information and direction to the process of re-examining Stage 11 of the rules. The collection of more data will mean fewer assumptions in the re-examination of the Lake. He said the rules stipulate that 3 years of data must be submitted by 2020 to be considered in the re- examination of the Lake. He said that UNRBA plans to begin monitoring in 2014, and dues and fees must be increased to cover the cost of this work. He referenced the outline of these fees, shown in the chart on slide 6, and noted that Orange County's share is $68,321. He said that $500,000 is designated for Lake and Watershed monitoring and related activities during the next fiscal year. He reviewed the expected achievements of the Path Forward Process, as outlined on slide 7. He noted that The Consensus Principles, adopted by the BOCC in 2010, included the following: "The affected local governments should share resources and assist with funding for the examination of the Nutrient Management Strategy." Commissioner Pelissier made reference to stage 2 in the packet, and she asked for examples of some of the current best practices in use now. Tom Davis said there are more BMPs in the urban areas than rural areas. He said the process is to get DWQ to grant credits for certain BMPs, but this has not been done yet. He gave the example of street sweeping in urban areas, and said there has been no credit established for this. He said that one other urban project underway is the Efland Sewer System, but there has been no credit established for switching a home from septic to sewer. He said there are also a couple of projects underway in the rural areas and a long list of potential agricultural BMPs. Gail Hughes said that some of the examples for agricultural communities are: fencing, livestock out of streams, additional buffer widths, and conservation tillage. She said that for agricultural farms with no livestock, the buffers must be expanded much wider and this takes up useable agricultural land. This is of great concern to the farmer or land owner. She said that some things that urban areas get credit for, such as grass swells, exist in agricultural communities as well, but are not credited. Dave Stancil said another issue is that Orange County has done a lot over the years but, many of these things don't count toward their phosphorous reduction. Commissioner McKee asked where the base year would be established. He also asked if the base year would affect reductions. Gail Hughes said 2006 is the farthest base year that can be referred back to. Dave Stancil said anything prior to that year is lost and it does not count toward the County's reduction. Commissioner McKee said that is his concern, as there were a lot of best practices put in place in the late 70's, 80's and 90's that will be lost. He also said that he does not believe that 77% can be reached. Gail Hughes said the phosphorus has been discussed many times in the Watershed Oversight Committees, which is the agricultural oversight committee. She said researchers have said that even if no more fertilizer was ever put on the ground, the phosphorus reduction goal would still not be attainable. Commissioner Gordon said Orange County voluntarily put in lot reduction sizes and did a lot to preserve water quality. Dave Stancil said one of the dilemmas noted in 2010 is that the loading rates are expected to be low, partially because of all the measures already in place. This means, by the letter of the law, it is hard to reduce something that is closer to zero by 40% and 77% than it is when starting from a larger number. He said this is why the opportunity to re-visit the nutrient strategy is important. Commissioner Gordon asked if it was possible to go to a performance base. Dave Stancil said this argument has been made in the past and he expects this to come out again. Chair Jacobs invited Pam Hemminger, Chair and Orange County Representative with the UNRBA to come forward. Chair Jacobs said the letters at the Commissioners' places articulated a lot of Orange County's concerns about water preservation. Commissioner Pelissier said her petition was to send a copy of these letters or a revised letter to DENR as soon as possible. Pam Hemminger said, from a political view, the big picture is that the lake is impaired and the state is expected to do something about it. The state has put the task back on the local jurisdictions, and each jurisdiction will be graded on the quality of the water in the lake as a whole; therefore it won't matter what one county has done or what the others haven't done. She said that this does not mean that efforts shouldn't be made to get credit for things being done, but this is a group project and the grading will be based on what the State finds in the lake. She noted that Orange County has the largest land mass in the watershed area and most of this is forested and agricultural land. She said she does not know how you can reduce forested land's output by 40% and 77% of these nutrients other than building a big retaining lake to hold it down. She said there are issues about this modeling program because it does not take into account the amount of nitrogen and the distance put in. She said Department of Water Quality (DWQ) has not been monitoring the lake because of cutbacks. She said she wants to know how much Orange County and its tributary, the Eno River, is contributing nutrients into the lake and as of now, no one knows where the nutrient problem is coming from. She noted that the biggest players are Raleigh and Durham, which have mostly urban interests, and thus have more credits and BMP's established by the state. She said that part of UNRBA's goal is to make sure that a long list of BMP's is available to the county, and to try and help the agricultural community. She said that the recommendation is that the County move forward with four years of monitoring. She said that there are seven separate tributaries coming into the lake and everyone is being graded on this group project. She referenced the question of why the County couldn't get a delay and said that the EPA would be likely to come in if there were a delay. She said things are moving in the right direction. Commissioner McKee asked how long since DWQ stopped monitoring and Pam Hemminger said about two years. Commissioner McKee said he feels that Orange County needs to be doing their own monitoring in order to have scientific data to back up arguments. Pam Hemminger said DWQ will not accept individual monitoring, only project group monitoring. Commissioner McKee said he is almost ready to go the lawsuit route because this makes no sense. Pam Hemminger said she agrees that this makes no sense and she feels that this can be proved with the scientific data being gathered. Commissioner McKee asked if Falls Lake was designed to raise the water level significantly. He said he believes the shallow depth and the upper end of the lake is the reason for the algae blooms. Pam Hemminger said that is part of the whole re-look at monitoring design. She said that monitoring further down the lake would give totally different results. Chair Jacobs said many think Orange County's regulations are too strong and slow down development, where the board has staked out stronger regulations in an effort to get credit. He said that the answer to Commissioner Pelissier's petition is to combine and simplify these two letters and send them to DENR and Mr. Gillespie. 3. Presentation of Manager's Recommended 2013-2018 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Frank Clifton said each year the Manager's office presents a 5 and 10 year CIP plan, but the primary focus of this discussion is the 2013-14 process. He said there are several policy comments in the appendices and several different funds will be referred to. Clarence Grier said this is the start of the budget process for 2013-14 and he introduced the budget staff. Paul Laughton said the County changed to a 5 year CIP plan a few years ago and the years 2006-2010 are included as a history. He read through the following PowerPoint slides: County Manager's Recommended FY 2013-18 Capital Investment Plan Presentation Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill Orange County, NC March 12, 2013 Overview • 5-Year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) with detailed information in Years 1-5, and an overall picture in Years 6-10 • The CIP is a budget planning tool that is evaluated annually to include year-to-year changes in priorities, needs, and available resources. • Funding decisions are approved only for Year 1 (FY 2013-14). CIP Format • Divided into the following sections/tabs: - CIP Summaries - County Projects - Special Revenue Projects (Article 46 Sales Tax) - Proprietary Projects (Water & Sewer, Solid Waste, and Sportsplex) - School Projects - Appendices (Debt Service, County Project balances, and Policies) CIP Summaries —Appropriations (pie chart) CIP Summaries — Revenues (pie chart) Major County Projects (Year 1) • Southern Library $600,000 (land and design work) • Information Technology $700,000 • VIPER Radio System $500,000 (1 st year of tower cost) • Communication Systems Improvements $1,725,268 • EMS Substations $875,000 Special Revenue Projects —Year 1 (Article 46 SalesTax) • 50% of proceeds to Economic Development initiatives, and 50% to Schools • Economic Development— $1, 319,500 (distributed among 8 initiatives with approximately 60% reserved for debt service) • Schools — CHCCS $801,900 (1/2 towards Technology, and 1/2 towards repairs identified in facilities assessment); OCS $516,850 (Technology 1:1 laptop initiative) Proprietary Projects —Year 1 • Water and Sewer Projects: - McGowan Creek Outfall $621,250 - Efland Sewer Flow to Mebane $160,000 - Eno EDD $115,000 • Solid Waste Protects: - Landfill Closure Costs $3,166,846 • Sportsplex Projects: - Ten (10) renovation and facility maintenance/replacement initiatives $710,000 School Projects (Year 1) • No new Debt financing of School Projects in FY 13-14 • Pay-As-You-Go funds — same amount as in FY 12-13 • Lottery Proceeds — slight increase from FY 12-13 (based on State projections) Major County Projects (Years 2-5) • FY 14-15: - Northern Human Services Center $2,000,000 - Lands Legacy $2,400,000 - VIPER Radio System $500,000 (second year of tower cost) • FY 15-16: - Southern Orange Campus $3,600,000 - Whitted Building $1,400,000 - EMS Substations $875,000 - Blackwood Farm Park $3,400,000 (phased in project) - Millhouse Road Park $6,400,000 - Eurosport Soccer Center $942,000 - Southern Library $525,000 (arch/engineering costs) - Proposed New Jail $500,000 (site design work) Major County Projects (Year 2-5) — cont. • FY 16-17: - Southern Human Services Center Expansion $6,650,000 - Southern Library $3,500,000 (costs spread over 2 years) - Blackwood Farm Park $1,300,000 (phased in project) - Proposed New Jail $500,000 (arch/engineering issues) - VIPER Radio System $500,000 (1 st year next tower cost) • FY 17-18: - Southern Library $3,500,000 (second year construction) - New Jail $29,000,000 - Blackwood Farm Park $2,100,000 (phased in project) - Communication System Improvements $920,000 - EMS Substations $875,000 - VIPER Radio System $500,000 (second year tower cost) Major Proprietary Projects (Years 2-5) • Water and Sewer: - Efland Sewer Flow to Mebane $3,436,000 and Eno EDD $1,750,000 in FY 14- 15 - Buckhorn-Mebane EDD Phase 3 & 4 $2,500,000 in FY 15-16 • Solid Waste: - SWCC Improvements to High Rock Road facility $452,441 and SWCC Improvements to Eubanks Road facility $1,235,427 in FY 14-15 - SWCC Improvements to Ferguson Road $288,517 in FY 15-16 - SWCC Improvements to Bradshaw Quarry $212,028 in FY 16-17 • Sportsplex: - Major Expansion Phase 1 (Pool Mezzanine Area) $950,000 in FY 14-15 - Major Expansion Phase 2 (Indoor Turf Field) $1,900,000 in FY 15-16 - Major Expansion Phase 3 (Indoor Basketball Court) $900,000 in FY 16-17 Major School Projects (Years 2-5) • Note: School construction is guided by the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) projections of capacity and need. • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools - Middle School #5 in FY 17-18 $39,850,680 total - Carrboro HS Additions in FY 20-21 $19,743,948 - Elementary #12 in FY 21-22 $35,476,053 total School Projects (Years 2-5) — cont. • Orange County Schools - No new schools to open in 10 year period, as per SAPFO - Based on current SAPFO projections, the district's elementary schools reach 104.9% Level of Service (LOS) in the 10thyear (FY 22-23) of the plan. Funding is included in Years 9 and 10, to prepare for possible opening in FY 23-24. - Cedar Ridge HS Auxiliary Gym $3,328,750 in FY 14-15 - Cedar Ridge HS Classroom Addition $12,282,960 in FY 15-16 Appendices • Debt Service and Debt Capacity: - General Fund — remains under the 15% debt capacity until FY 2017-18, when it would reach 15.65% - Water and Sewer Projects (Article 46 Sales Tax proceeds) — current projected revenue earmarked for debt service is adequate to cover debt service payments over the 5-Year CIP • County Capital Project balances • Capital Funding, Debt Management, and Fund Balance Management Policies Document Availability • Clerk to Board of Commissioners • County Financial Services Office • Orange County Website - www.orangecountVnc.gov Chair Jacobs asked for clarification of the 15% debt capacity and how it affects borrowing. Clarence Grier said Orange County has a policy that the debt capacity should not exceed 15% of the general fund budget. He said every year there is a forecasting process that is based on current debt service and what is known will be issued in future years. Frank Clifton said it is not just a County policy, but is also a guideline followed by the Local Government Committee (LGC), who approves all of the debt. He said one limiting factor has been a lack of growth in revenue. He said that the revenue projections tend to be conservative because there is very little control over any revenue other than property tax. Commissioner Dorosin questioned whether it would be better to take on more during this time when the borrowing rates are at record lows. Frank Clifton said this is not a decision for Orange County but also the LGC. He said that in the State of NC, no municipality can settle debt on its own and it must be reviewed and approved by the LGC. He said the State also created a new board several years ago where all policies and debt other than jails and schools must pass through. He clarified that this is all with regard to general fund debt. He said that local sales tax projects do not affect that 15%. He said that bonded debt increases the tax rate and the general fund budget. Paul Laughton said that much of the newer debt for this fiscal year will be funded with the Article 46 sales tax. He said that there is currently a 1.4 million dollar surplus in debt proceeds versus money paid out. He said that there are two work sessions scheduled; one on April 11, and another on May 9, for discussion of the CIP. Chair Jacobs said Northern Human Services Center is on the work session agenda on May 14th and the Whitted facility is schedule for a town meeting on April 4th. He noted that the middle school number 5 does not count the cost of land because land has been set aside at Twin Creeks. He said that the last bond was in 2001 for 70 million dollars and this was designated for: parks, Lands Legacy, Affordable Housing, Morris Grove Elementary, Carrboro High, Gravelly Hill and Twin Creeks. Frank Clifton referred to the last page listing active projects, and said many of these have been in the works for years and the Board has made a concerted effort to bring these older projects to fruition. He mentioned the proposed jail expansion, and said that the County's Jails have been historically overcrowded and it is very fortunate that the State Administration approved a long term lease on a piece of property adjacent to the State Prison. He said the issue is now to negotiate terms of the lease, which will obligate the County to move forward with the Jail project in a timely manner or potentially give up the spot. He asked the Board to keep this in mind, as it will come before them in the coming months. Commissioner McKee said, although there are no new schools in Orange County per SAPFO, there are many older schools in the County that need to be replaced. He asked if this had been considered. OCS Superintendent Patrick Rhodes said the replacement discussion has not taken place. Commissioner McKee referred to the issue of the EMS stations, and said these were not a recommendation out of the Emergency Services work group. He said there is currently a contract in place with Orange Rural for the use of the Phelps Road station to park an ambulance. He said he recommends removal of that first year EMS station since the Phelps Road station takes the place of it. Paul Laughton said this is noted on the EMS section in the CIP notebook. Commissioner Price asked about the allocation for money for schools based on SAPFO and asked about the status of students getting laptops. Chair Jacobs said that schools handle that. Patrick Rhodes said all students in grades 6-12 received laptops this past year and grades 3-5 will receive them next year. Todd LoFriese, Assistant Superintendant for Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) said there is still work being done to achieve a higher ratio for laptop accessibility. He said the target is a 2:1 ratio but this has not been reached. Commissioner Gordon referred to the Culbreth science labs and noted that CHCCS have put some money in designing them, but there is no funding in the CIP. She asked for information on how this can be funded so that it can be brought forward in the next discussion. She expressed her support for this project. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is any progress on assessing the needs for older schools. Patrick said they have asked the Department of Public Instruction to conduct a facilities site review. He said site analysis on the older schools has been done and this was one of the ways the lower capacity at Orange High School was identified. He said major recommendations were identified at all older school sites, which includes all of the elementary schools. Todd Lofriese said CHCCS hired an architectural firm to analyze 10 schools that range from 40-60 years old and this analysis is in draft form at this point. He said the overview showed widespread needs in the facilities and this will be looked at over the next few months to develop recommendations to be considered by the Board. Chair Jacobs said there will be a school collaboration meeting on April 3 d, and recommended that CHCCS share any documents on this issue to be considered at that meeting. Paul Laughton said that the Article 46 sales tax provides $400,000 for CHCCS next year to go toward property repairs. Chair Jacobs asked if this includes Culbreth. Todd Lofriese said this includes repairs to Culbreth but not the Science Rooms. Chair Jacobs said he wanted to flag the fact that in the CIP there is discussion about the aging agricultural building and where agencies in that building may move. He said Blackwood Farm Park Center was mentioned as an alternative, but there has been discussion about whether this could substitute for the existing facility. He said this discussion is not addressed directly in the CIP. He said he would like to comb through this at their next CIP work session. Chair Jacobs clarified that Whitted Building is still in two more fiscal years, 2015 and 2016. He noted that there is a fair amount of money already on hand that has been moved over from the Link Center. Frank Clifton said this was budgeted for it but not financed. Chair Jacobs asked if there is still flexibility to finance it earlier if the County is under 15% and Frank Clifton said yes. Commissioner Gordon underscored the need to address the older schools, including the Culbreth science labs. Chair Jacobs referenced the pie chart on page 3 of the PowerPoint, and noted that this is a departure from the last 5 years in the amount of funding going to county projects. He asked if this could be compared to prior years at the next meeting. 4. Discussion on Facilitating the Performance Evaluation Process for Three Staff Members Appointed by the Board — County Attorney, Clerk, and Manager Commissioner Rich said the sub-committee met with a consultant, Peg Carlson, for discussion. She said Commissioner Price brought in information and forms from NACo, SOG, NCACC, and other counties. She said there is nothing standard in place at this point. She said she feels it is important that the Board move forward with setting something up for the manager, but that the clerk and the county attorney could be handled in a different manner. She said the cost to handle only the manager would be less than doing all three positions, and she is not sure more funds need to be spent to do the other two positions. She said her recommendation would be to have the consultant involved in the Manager's review to get a system in place for this first time. Then the Board could evaluate if the consultant is needed again the next year. Commissioner Price said Peg Carlson was very helpful, and it was clear in looking at different examples of evaluation forms, that guidance is needed. She said Peg Carlson gave three different ways this can be dealt with: 1) Facilitator is involved in walking the Board through the whole process, 2) Facilitator comes to sit down with each Board member to record individual comments and evaluations, or 3) Facilitator would act as mediator to receive forms and pass them on. She said that it would be a different process for the manager versus the county attorney and clerk. She said evaluation forms that she received from other sources would be hard to fill out unless working side by side with the manager or attorney. Commissioner Rich said the Board can meet individually or as a group with Peg Carlson, who would help compile all of the information and help lead the conversation/evaluation. Commissioner Rich said that in the past, the evaluations went to Donna Baker, who was responsible for compiling this information. She said this was striking and she and the consultant felt this was not right. She asked for Donna Baker's input on this. Donna Baker said, as an employee, she had sensitive and confidential information and she kept it that way. She acknowledged that this is probably not the norm and the suggestion to have an outside, objective facilitator is a good one. She said that this will also give more freedom of discussion. Commissioner Price said that the cost for the consultant should also be considered. Commissioner Rich said that is why she recommends going with the consultant, but doing the evaluation discussions as a group to lessen the time, and the cost of the consultant. Commissioner Price said she asked the consultant about anonymity. Peg Carlson said her experience is that people are usually pretty comfortable speaking in a group and she can handle it if someone needs to make a private comment. Commissioner Rich said Peg Carlson said that in many cases a form isn't even necessary when she is there. The conversation is what is most important and the consultant knows how to put it into the proper format for an evaluation. Chair Jacobs asked for an explanation of the vision for the Attorney and Clerk evaluations. Commissioner Price said she thought Peg Carlson should be involved in that process also, because someone would need to collect the forms and gather information. Commissioner Rich said she does not know what has been done in the past and there is accountability to state requirements. Commissioner Price said the questions would be specific to those positions, but it still begs the question of need for an outside facilitator. Donna Baker asked for clarification on the concerns. She said the concern is how to gather information and give it to the Board, etc. She said the current process is for her and the Attorney to do their own forms and then give these to the Board to be done individually and then discussed in closed session. Then the information is given back to the clerk to be summarized, or this could be given to the Chair. Donna Baker said that she would be more comfortable if the information goes to an outside consultant, or to one of the Board Members. Commissioner Rich said this could certainly be tried with a consultant for one year and then possibly passed delegate it to the Chair on the following year. Chair Jacobs said, for the Clerk and County Attorney, the Board could just respond to work plan, and then have a board member or consultant to collate the information. He said the other option is to meet before reviewing the person, get the work plan and then have the conversation, but this requires 2 meetings. Donna Baker asked if the consultant could simply collate the results and give a summary back to the Commissioners before the meeting. Chair Jacobs said this is a possibility. Commissioner Price said this will bring in a time frame for doing the work. Chair Jacobs said that the way it works now, there is no prior conversation. The forms are given to the Board; the board meets with the staff member and has the first conversation; everyone leaves; the forms are given to someone to be collated; and the chair is asked to give feedback to the staff member. He asked how this process will be followed or diverged from under the proposed plan. Commissioner Rich said the consultant said the current process for the two staff members works, but the process for the manager position did not. She said she understands if it Peg Carlson is needed to collate some information for these. Commissioner Price said she has no problem with the information being collated by the Chair, only with it being collated by Clerk or the Attorney. Donna Baker agreed with this and said this responsibility should be given to a Board member Commissioner Price said she prefers the use of a work plan, but either a form or work plan would do. Commissioner Dorosin asked if information on all Board comments is just put into one document, as it seems it is done now, or if there is a general summary or paraphrasing of comments. He said that if the Board gets written comments, then the staff member should get all of those actual comments, even if there is a summary. He said he does not understand why a consultant is needed. He said he has no reservation in speaking freely and does not see the need for a third party. He feels that a board member can compile the information. Chair Jacobs said, with regard to the first question, whoever is assigned to do the minutes will summarize the comments. He deferred to Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price about the consultant. Commissioner Rich said an impartial, outside person leading a conversation can get more information out of people and then this person compiles it in a professional review. She noted that this compilation process requires a lot of work. Commissioner Dorosin said he has less faith in the facilitation process in general and as an internal operation this is an issue already being wrestled with. He said in general there should be able to be candid conversations about these things. Commissioner Price said she was hesitant at first too and then changed her mind after meeting Peg Carlson. She noted that no one on the board has experience in Human Resources. She said the consultant can bring so much expertise to this process. She said the consultant would work as a guide to what needs to be talked about and how to move forward in the process. She said, in the case of the manager, something that works needs to be in place, for now and for the future when a new manager comes in. She said this can happen with the consultant operating at a bare minimum if that is what is desired. She also said it is standard now for employees to be able to see their evaluations. Commissioner Gordon said it would be good to approve a process and have an evaluation form. She said there are effects of group dynamics when things are discussed and a set of objective questions and a collation process will give a more objective result. She said that the Commissioners should decide on the evaluation form and use it as a template to do individual evaluations. She said the form for a compilation of the evaluations should have a matrix with scores and then a section for comments. Then when the evaluation forms are collated, no information or comments are lost. She said that this information can be prepared ahead of time for the entire Board to look at prior to a group conversation. This takes the group dynamic effect out of each person's evaluation. She said that her recommendation is that the Commissioner's agree to an evaluation instrument and have someone collate it with all statements included. Commissioner Rich asked why Commissioner Gordon feels the comments should not be attributed to a specific person. Commissioner Gordon said this would allow people to be more candid. Commissioner Pelissier said one of the problems the Board has had is that some parts of this process have been done for some of the evaluations and then not done for others. She said she agrees that some comments should be given before the Board meets to talk. She said that people have not always given comments ahead of time. She clarified that Donna Baker never compiled her information; the Chair did. She said that this compilation did not take a lot of work. She said that the private discussion meeting is where you don't want attributions; so if comments are made ahead of time, they can be made anonymous. She said this is the responsibility of the Commissioners to provide these comments. Donna Baker said she did compilations for the Attorney's evaluation and there were often no comments, just ratings. She said the comments are helpful to the staff. John Roberts said the Human Resources Director could compile for the clerk and the attorney. Chair Jacobs asked him how the prior form has worked. John Roberts said the form works fine for him and is similar to other local governments' forms for attorneys. He said that it is difficult for him to formulate a work plan for submission because so much of his work plan is reactive to the Board's needs. Commissioner McKee said he is comfortable with the Clerk and the County Attorney (CA) using the same forms as they have in the past. He is also comfortable with one member of the Board of County Commissioners compiling the information. He feels the Manager is different and he can see using a consultant for this one year to get things on track. He said he has seen a lot more stumbling with the Manager's position. Commissioner McKee said he keeps hearing about a process the Board used to have that worked. He said he is unclear why this process was left and why the Board does not go back to it. Chair Jacobs said Frank Clifton's predecessor did not like the process or the form, and the Board had to diverge from this. Commissioner McKee said he has little experience in formal evaluations. He said there is a need to improve manager's evaluation, but he is comfortable with the Clerk and the CA. Commissioner Price said, based on what she heard, the Board could go forward with contracting the consultant to assist with the manager evaluation. She said that the current form or another form from the examples provided could be used for the Clerk and CA. She said she does not mind Human Resources compiling the information. She said she personally does not like to rate people by numbers and prefers to write down comments. Commissioner Rich asked the Board to look at attachment B on page 4 and note the initial planning step one, which includes the creation of the evaluation form. Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees that help is only needed with the manager's evaluation. She said that what has not happened is getting the information ahead of time. She said that this is the key. She said she never cared about ratings but wanted to know the why behind the rating and the comments. She said this is the essence of a good evaluation. John Roberts agreed that comments are helpful and gave specific examples of this on his own evaluations. Donna Baker also agreed with this need for constructive criticism. Commissioner Gordon referred to attachment B and said that the sub-committee should have the Board sign off on the form from the consultant. She said this process should start now and not wait until August Commissioner Rich said that a consultant cannot be used for ten months or it would be too costly. Commissioner Gordon said the form should be agreed on and then the process should be put in place separate from the actual evaluation. She said she does not want to use the HR director, who is an employee. She feels that it should be an outside person like Peg Carlson, or if it is an inside person, it should be the Chair. Chair Jacobs summarized that there is agreement on the same process and the same forms for the Clerk and the CA. Donna Baker noted that there are only 6 weeks left and these forms should be submitted 2 weeks prior to the meeting. Commissioner Price said these forms should be very simple. Chair Jacobs clarified that a new form and process for the Clerk and CA would have to be adopted at the April 9th meeting. He summarized that the Chair would be responsible for compilation of comments and forms for the Clerk and CA. Chair Jacobs said that a consultant could be employed to develop and guide the evaluation process for the manager. He suggested that something be put together and presented to the Commissioners prior to summer break in order to meet the October evaluation timeframe. He said that if a consultant is used, there is still the issue of how far the consultant participates. He noted that there are differing opinions about this and the issue needs to be decided. He said that if the consultant is used, a form will need to be submitted at the April 9th meeting to authorize expenditures to fund the consultant for whatever scope of work is decided. Commissioner Gordon said that for the attorney, clerk and manager there needs to be a formal statement of process. She said she and Commissioner Hemminger had developed this and with a few minor changes, this process could be used. She asked that this could be looked at. Chair Jacobs suggested that this be part of the April 9th discussion. Commissioner Dorosin said that the other piece is to give these employees some guidance on the evaluation process. Chair Jacobs said that there has been some standard expectation followed in the past. He said that at least for this first year, perhaps this should still be closely followed. He feels that the work plan should still be included in the process. Commissioner Dorosin asked if those work plans are submitted to the Board for approval at the beginning of the year. Donna Baker said this is usually part of the evaluation form. And the Clerk and Attorney's evaluations are in the spring and the manager's evaluation is now in the fall. Commissioner Gordon said this is why it is important to get this started right away and that this process is all outlined in the plan she mentioned earlier. Chair Jacobs said that he suggests that the Board authorize the use of the consultant in developing a process to evaluate the county manager, not to exceed the given estimate. He said that it can be decided later what scope the consultant would operate on. Commissioner Rich said she has gone through this process twice and never without an outside source assisting. She feels it is important to try this new process and see how smoothly it can move. Chair Jacobs said that the sub-committee can make a recommendation on April 9th regarding the totality of the use of the consultant and this can be discussed and voted on. Frank Clifton said he feels the manager's position is different. He said that his evaluations here thus far have not been the most pleasant or forthright and there has been very little clarity. He said clarity is better than anonymity. He said that he has never had a work plan because his plan is based on the priorities of the Board. He said that in the end, maybe a consultant will help the process be more forthright. He said that he feels it will be difficult and a system is needed. He said that he feels the manager should be given the opportunity to respond and this has been missing. Commissioner Price said that the point of the consultant is to create a conversation to help things move forward. Chair Jacobs said he appreciates the work of Commissioner Price and Rich. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 10:04 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board