Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-09-2013 APPROVED 5/21/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING April 9, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs 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, 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. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Jacobs went through the items at the County Commissioners' places: - White sheet—for Item 7a - Rogers Road Community Center Power Point - Pink, blue and yellow sheets —for Item 7-b- Recycling letters Due to a power outage earlier in the night, Chair Jacobs suggested changes to the agenda. He asked the board to consider deferring items 4b and 4c, and to invite these people back for another meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to defer these items to a future meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 7:02pm Chair Jacobs introduced Amanda Page, District Representative from Congressman Howard Coble's office, who will be based out of the Efland office. Chair Jacobs also recognized Boy Scout Troop 822 from the Union Grove Methodist Church and scoutmaster Alan Parker, who earned a merit badge. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Don O'Leary said the meeting last week with the Chair and Vice Chair went well. He shared the following quote from Mark Twain: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." He said the differences of opinion are knowledge based and he offered a book on agenda 2, (Behind the Green Mask, by Rosa Koire), which he left with Donna Baker and encouraged the commissioners to read. Chair Jacobs noted that he, Commissioner McKee, and David Stancil did recently have a meeting with Don O'Leary and there was good discussion regarding the issues. Annette Smith lives in Chapel Hill and serves as parent co-chair of the School Improvement Team (SIT) at Culbreth Middle School. She expressed her support of the proposed science wing. She said the members of her school endorse the proposed science wing and respectfully request that it be funded in the 2013/14 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). She reviewed the benefits of the wing and the improved academic space and function it would provide to the school. Beverly Rudolph, Principal at Culbreth Middle School, expressed her hope that the science wing gets funded for next year. She noted the current small classrooms and invited the Commissioners to come and tour the school to better see the needs. She noted that she will be sending photos of the class sizes and said that she would like to see her students have the same space and opportunity for science learning as the rest of the district. Catherine Courier lives in Mebane and expressed her concerns about personal property ownership. She is specifically concerned with farmers losing the rights to wells on their property. She said the county needs to adhere to the constitution in its decisions. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit per Commissioner) Commissioner Pelissier made two petitions. The first was in reference to the Orange/Alamance county line. She said last year a local bill was passed that resolved many of the issues with the county line; but a commitment was not made to those that did not like the changes- Morrow Mill and Mill Creek. She asked Chair Jacobs and Commissioner McKee to approach Alamance commissioners to begin discussion toward a local bill to finish the work that was started. Commissioner Pelissier made a second petition to Frank Clifton and Gayle Wilson to investigate pay as you throw options to create and present a synopsis and recommendation to the Board. She also suggested that the towns be approached to gauge interest. Chair Jacobs said some of the Board members met with a group called Waste Zero, who is interested in facilitating pay as you throw as an environmentally friendly alternative to customary municipal solid waste disposal. Commissioner Price questioned an item on the agenda for April 23 regarding the Northern Human Services Center. Donna Baker said that there is an item on the April 16th work session and invited Greg Wilder to speak regarding this. Greg Wilder said the item was originally scheduled to occur at the meeting in Chapel Hill, but it has been reconfigured to be on the April 16th work session in Hillsborough. Chair Jacobs said he was at the Walnut Grove Convenience Center when it was warm. He requested that there be some consideration of putting concrete or something to mitigate the heat for the benefit of the staff that will be there all day. Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Gordon had petitioned the Board earlier this year about formalizing closed sessions materials. He noted there had not been a response yet, and he said he would like to add a petition for the manager, before putting a closed session item on an agenda, to contact the Chair to discuss it ahead of time. Commissioner Gordon said she had hoped that the response to her petition from the agenda review team would have been a recommendation for a more formal process. She asked that her request be re-visited. She said that perhaps the petition could be revised and the addition from the Chair added to a revised petition. It was agreed that this would be discussed at a later time. Commissioner Price asked if her suggestion about Northern Human Services Center would be put on an agenda that is in the northern part of the county. Chair Jacobs said he will make sure this happens. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Fair Housing Month The Board considered a proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month 2013 and authorizing the Chair to sign. James Davis, Civil Rights Staff for the Department of Housing, Human Rights and Community Development, read the following proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, April 2013 marks the 45th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the 30th anniversary of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, handicap and familial status; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners enacted the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance on June 6, 1994, which affords to the residents of Orange County the protections guaranteed by Title VIII and additionally encompasses the protected classes of veteran status and age; and WHEREAS, Orange County and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as concerned residents and the housing industry are working to make fair housing opportunities possible for everyone by encouraging other to abide by the letter and the spirit of fair housing laws; and WHEREAS, despite the protection afforded by the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance and Title VIII as amended, illegal housing discrimination still occurs in our nation and in our County; and WHEREAS, by supporting and promoting fair housing and equal opportunity, we are contributing to the health of our County, State and Nation. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, do proclaim April 2013 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and commend this observance to all Orange County residents. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to approve a proclamation designating April as Fair Housing Month 2013 and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Local Historic Landmark Designation for Captain John S. Pope Farm The Board was to consider and adopt an ordinance to designate the Captain John S. Pope Farm in Cedar Grove as an Orange County Local Historic Landmark and authorize the Chair to sign. DEFERRED C. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation — Multiple Farms — Green, Ward, Pope, Walters The Board was to consider applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying farmland within the Cedar Grove, Cane Creek-Buckhorn, High Rock/Efland, and Caldwell Voluntary Agricultural Districts, and to enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agriculture District (EVAD) programs. DEFERRED 5. Consent Agenda Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from February 5, 21, and 25, 2013 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for forty-nine (49) taxpayers with a total of fifty-six (56) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. C. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for eight (8) taxpayers with a total of fourteen (14) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved two (2) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for two (2) bills for the 2012 tax year. e. Refund of Overpayment of Tax/Revenue Stamps The Board approved a refund of overpayment of tax/revenue stamps. f. Bid Award — Road Tractor for Recycling/Solid Waste The Board awarded a bid to Piedmont Peterbilt of Greensboro, North Carolina for a Road Tractor for Orange County Solid Waste at a delivered cost of$107,648. g_ Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013 The Board approved two changes in the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2013 as follows: 1) Moved the May 14, 2013 BOCC work session FROM Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough TO Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill, at 7:OOpm 2) Moved the November 12, 2013 BOCC Work Session (7:OOpm) FROM Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill TO Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough. h. Safe Routes to School Action Plan Overview and Proposed Schedule for Initial Adoption Steps The Board authorized staff to proceed with initial Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan adoption steps according to the Amendment form for the SRTS Action Plan. i. Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proclamation The Board approved a proclamation recognizing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. 6. Public Hearings a. Amendments to Unified Development Ordinance Text: Revise Section 1.6.5 — (Planning Board) Rules of Procedure - Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments Accepted) The Board received the Planning Board's recommendation, closed the public hearing, and made a decision on Planning Director initiated text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to revise Section 1.6.5 — (Planning Board) Rules of Procedure, to be consistent with current County processes and procedures. Perdita Holtz summarized the amendment and recommendation. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon seconded by Commissioner Rich to receive the Planning Board's recommendation, close the public hearing and adopt the ordinance contained in Attachment 2 which authorizes the text amendments. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Regular Agenda a. Rogers Road Community Center Schematic Design Review The Board considered Reviewing and commenting on the schematic design of the Rogers Road Community Center and authorize staff and consultant to move forward with construction document preparation and construction bid process; Authorizing the Manager to award a bid for construction and any unforeseen conditions change orders for the Rogers Road Community Center in an amount not- to-exceed the Board appropriated amount of$650,000 approved within the FY2012-13 Capital Investment Plan in the event that the bid award occurs during the summer break. This bid award and subsequent construction start would be contingent upon the execution of a Lease Agreement between Orange County and Habitat for Humanity, as well as the execution of an Operating Agreement between Orange County and the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association ("RENK); and Authorizing the Chair to send a letter to the Town of Chapel Hill requesting that the Town expedite the site plan review, permitting and other associated processes for the project as well as waive all associated Town fees related to those processes. Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services, reviewed background information. He said the staff is moving forward on crafting the land lease agreement with Habitat for Humanity, and is finalizing an operating agreement with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association. He said that the development and construction plans are being developed to build the facility in a timely manner. He introduced Joe Wagner and Patric LeBeau, architects from Perkin+Will, and noted their design work is being done at no cost to the county. He said the schematic design would be presented and the desired outcome is approval of this design to allow staff to move forward with a goal of beginning construction in the summertime. PUBLIC COMMENT: Patric LeBeau thanked Reverend Campbell and his partners at this law firm who donated their time to this project. He then reviewed four PowerPoint slides of schematic designs, which are included as attachments land 2 of item 7a. He first reviewed the locater map from attachment 1 showing the site location for the Rogers Road Community Center. He said his firm became involved in this project through the Chapel Hill Preservation Society. He said originally there were discussions about renovating the existing Hogan house into a community center, but this was too cost prohibitive. He said this is a great location for a community center because it is on the first corner off the neighborhood and is located off the main street. He reviewed the site plan in attachment 2 and gave details regarding tree plantings, landscape features, porch layout and other features outlined on the plan. He noted the inclusion of a kitchen with space to accommodate community gatherings, after school lunches and other events. He noted 4 main classrooms and a library/computer space, as well as a staff area. Chair Jacobs thanked him and asked for Board questions and comments. Commissioner Gordon thanked Patric LeBeau and his firm for their pro bono work. She asked how many staff members would be accommodated in the staff room on the plan. Patric LeBeau said he did not know at this point, but the plan would allow enough space for at least 4-5 desks. Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts for clarification on how this arrangement will work for Habitat. John Roberts said it is long term lease on the land for the county and the county will own the building. Commissioner Price thanked the firm for their work. Commissioner Rich asked for occupancy rate of the building and Patric LeBeau said about 130-190. Commissioner Rich asked if the kitchen would need to be inspected if it is not a commercial kitchen. Patric LeBeau said the intention is to design the space to the level of a commercial kitchen and if inspection is required, it will be done. John Roberts said he was not aware that there was a commercial kitchen here and so the draft agreement will need to be re-written. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ree Ree Wei lives in Phoenix Place and said her parents purchased their home from Habitat for Humanity after first living in an overcrowded basement apartment with no safe place to play. She said that when the family first moved to Phoenix Place, the RENA Community Center allowed the children in her family to be involved in computer classes, tutoring, leadership training, and food distribution. She said that some of the activities continued after the center closed, and that she wants the new community center to open. She noted the financial difficulties that her parents have in paying for afterschool programs and summer camps. She said that the community center would provide these things for her family and asked for the Board for help. David Caldwell asked the people from the Rogers Road community to please stand up and he thanked everyone who has assisted with this project. Jennifer Prater lives in Phoenix Place and said she is here to give an example of how important this center will be. She said there is need for a place for the neighborhood parents and children to meet. She said this is what the community center will be used for, and it is important. She thanked everyone for expediting this process. Felicia Weaver, also a resident of Phoenix Place, said that RENA welcomed her with open arms. She said when she first moved there, the then existing community center provided activities and classes for her children, as well as the neighborhood parents. She said there is a need for a community meeting facility as well as for after school programs and activities for the children. Pam Hemminger urged the Board to keep this project on the fast track. She noted that the site has been cleared and said that there are good reasons to approve this quickly. She said the desire is to have the center opened before the summer of 2014. She noted that there was no center last summer and there will not be one this summer; and she said that without on-going programs, both social and educational, the children go lacking. She said she has been working with several groups on a business plan to make this site successful, both financially and operationally. She said it would be great if the county could break ground before the Landfill closes in July 2013. Commissioner McKee said these comments are why he has pushed this community center forward and it is heartening to see it coming to fruition. He encouraged the Board to move this project forward and to approve all of the manager's recommendations. Commissioner Rich asked Patric LeBeau to step forward. She said that he is doing this work pro bono. She said the task force put pressure on him to give estimates even before plans were finalized and he pulled through every time. She wanted to recognize him for his dedication. She said there had been discussions about Chapel Hill waiving some of the permitting fees. Jeff Thompson said he met with Chapel Hill staff last week and was told that all of the fees would be waived, but he is hoping to get this in writing. Frank Clifton said it would be best to formalize this in a written letter. Chair Jacobs said he was under the impression that the town had done this and he did write a letter to Mayor Kleinschmidt to see if this was the case. There has not been a response back, but Chair Jacobs agreed that it is good policy to get it all in writing. Commissioner Dorosin asked who did the clearing of the site and how it was paid for. Jeff Thompson said this was done by the Habitat organization, who owns the land. The land was identified as a Community Center site, and nothing else will be built there. He said, there will be a lease agreement, after which funds will move forward from the county for vertical construction on the site. Commissioner Dorosin asked if grading was done or will be part of the construction process. Jeff Thompson said it is going to be graded and is ready to build on. John Roberts said Habitat has asked to be reimbursed for costs and this will be reviewed and decided on by the Board. Chair Jacobs suggested that the motion reflect changes to item 3 that will address the waiver of permitting fees. This change is bolded in the motion below. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to: 1) Review and comment on the schematic design of the Rogers Road Community Center, and authorize staff and consultant to move forward with construction document preparation and construction bid process; 2) Authorize the Manager to award a bid for construction and any unforeseen conditions change orders for the Rogers Road Community Center in an amount not-to-exceed the Board appropriated amount of$650,000 approved within the FY12-13 Capital Investment Plan in the event that the bid award occurs during the summer break. This bid award and subsequent construction start would be contingent upon the execution of a Lease Agreement between Orange County and Habitat for Humanity, as well as the execution of an Operating Agreement between Orange County and the Rogers Eubanks Community Association ("RENK); and 3) Authorize the Chair to send a letter to the Town of Chapel Hill requesting confirmation that the Town will expedite the site plan review, permitting and other associated processes for the project as well as waive all associated Town fees related to those processes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Operational and Funding Options for Orange County's Solid Waste and Recycling Programs The Board considered and discussed operational and funding options for Orange County Solid Waste and Recycling Programs. Chair Jacobs said before public comment is solicited, the Board of County Commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions after staff presentations. He said the Board appreciates all of the letters of concern and support for the County's recycling program. He assured the public that the Board of County Commissioners is still committed to the best recycling program in the state and will be looking at options to ensure that the County remains progressive, collaborative and effective from the perspective of both cost and reduction of recycling. He said it is noted on page 3 of the agenda abstract that a public hearing is set for April 23 d at Southern Human Services Center and the primary purpose is a discussion of franchise options. He said that if it is the board's pleasure, this meeting topic can be changed to a discussion of all of the narrowed down options to consider. He said this will be a better time to get a sense of public comment. Michael Talbert, Assistant County Manager, outlined the topic and noted the following attachments included with this item: • General Statutes 150A-136, 160A-327, and 153A-421 • Solid Waste Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures • Solid Waste Advisory Board Resolution • Summary of Solid Waste and Recycling Service • Information from Commission for the Environment (CfE) • Information from Town of Hillsborough • Letter from Recycling Employees Michael Talbert said Orange County is recognized as being number one in the state for waste reduction, reaching 59% of its 61% aggressive reduction goal. The County is disposing only 0.56 tons/person compared to the base year of 1991-92, when the disposal rate measured 1.36 tons. In the region, Wake County has achieved a 25% reduction rate, Durham County rate is at 21%, Chatham County is at 37% and Alamance County at 26%. Orange County's 61% waste reduction goal was adopted in 1997 by the County and by the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough as part of the County's original Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan. The County is committed to continuous robust public education services and waste reduction programs regardless of the funding or operational program implemented by the Board. The County's Reduce, Reuse & Recycle (3-R) Fees consists of four annual recycling fees adopted by Orange County in 2004 to fund recycling programs and services that are billed in conjunction with the annual property tax. The fee consists of a Basic Fee ($37/year) that is charged to all improved properties county-wide and funds various recycling operations such as the county Toxicity Reduction Improvement Program (Household Hazardous Waste, batteries, waste oil, electronics, etc.), recycling drop-off sites, recycling at solid waste convenience centers, education and outreach, enforcement, planning, etc. An Urban Curbside Fee ($52/year) is assessed to improved residential properties within incorporated municipalities and funds weekly curbside recycling service. A Rural Curbside Fee ($38/year) is charged to residential property in areas of unincorporated Orange County eligible to receive bi-weekly curbside recycling service. Finally, a Multi-family Fee ($19/year) is charged multi-family units throughout Orange County for multi- family recycling services. (Attachment 4, Solid Waste Recycling Division Schedule of Revenues and Expenses for Fiscal 2011/2012. Not related to recycling, the County also assesses a county-wide Solid Waste Convenience Center Fee that is billed in conjunction with the annual property tax. The Unincorporated Areas Fee is ($20/year/Household), Incorporated Areas Fee is ($10/year/Household), and Multi-family Fee is ($2/year/multi-family unit). This basic Solid Waste Convenience Center Fee covers a portion of the operating costs of the County's five (5) Convenience Centers. A recent court decision, Lanvale v Cabarrus County, essentially says that where there is no direct statutory authority to levy a fee, a local government cannot levy a fee. Since the Lanvale opinion was issued, Orange County's staff has been engaged in discussions regarding how, going forward, the County can best address the issues created by this action of the Supreme Court. The Basic Fee is likely consistent with existing law, but the Urban, Rural and Multi-family recycling fees may not be consistent with existing case law. The County Manager will recommend that the Board of County Commissioners cease assessing the Urban, Rural and Multi-family recycling fees beginning with the Fiscal 2013/14 Annual Budget. The County Manager further recommends funding these services for Fiscal 2013/14 only with solid waste enterprise fund reserves to allow the County time to transition to an alternative solution. The Rural Curbside program currently is limited to 13,730 households eligible in the unincorporated area of the County. A rural curbside recycling fee is charged to those households where recycling services are made available. These services are provided by County Staff. Just 6,000 households lack access to rural curbside service at this time and are not charged the Rural Curbside Fee. Waste collections in unincorporated Orange County are provided by private haulers, without a County Franchise Agreement, on a voluntary basis to those using the services. The Urban Curbside recycling fee is charged to Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough municipal residents by the County for urban curbside recycling services. The services are paid for by Orange County Solid Waste under contract with Waste Industries, Inc. and the towns are responsible for household solid waste within their town limits. The Multi-family Fee is charged to each multi-family establishment in both incorporated and unincorporated Orange County based on the number of residential units for collection of recyclable materials at each of these locations. The multi-family recycling services are provided by Orange County Solid Waste staff. North Carolina General Statute 153A-136 (Attachment 1) Regulation of Solid Waste, gives counties the authority to grant a franchise for the exclusive right to collect or dispose of solid waste within all or a defined portion of the county and prohibit others from collecting or disposing of solid wastes in that area. The County is exploring a franchise agreement process for the unincorporated areas of the County which would include the privatization of curbside household solid waste and recycling. The County may by resolution permit a Solid Waste Ordinance to be adopted by the Towns and applicable within the Town limits. The Towns may negotiate a fee schedule that differs from fees established by the County for privatized curbside solid waste or recycling services. North Carolina General Statute 160A-327 (Attachment 2) provides that a unit of local government may displace a private company that is providing collection services for household solid waste or recovered material. The County is following the procedure outlined in GS 160A- 327. The earliest possible date for the Board to hold a hearing to consider implementing provisions of the statue is April 23, 2013. On March 7, 2013 the Board approved the scheduling of a public hearing on April 23, 2013 to discuss a proposal to move toward a county-wide Franchise agreement for curbside Solid Waste and Recycling Services in the unincorporated areas of Orange County and directed staff to proceed with the various steps required in NC General Statutes. Both rural solid waste collections and rural curbside recycling could be included in a county-wide Franchise Agreement. The Board requested that staff present available options for Orange County to fund the County's Recycling. A county-wide Franchise agreement for curbside Solid Waste and Recycling Services in the unincorporated areas of Orange County is only one option being considered by the Board. Option 1 creates an Authority which would operate much like Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), as a standalone regional solution. This option would require the cooperation of two (2) or more local governments to form an Authority. An Authority would not be included in the County's General Fund Budget and would be governed by an independent board. Options 2, 3, & 4 explore the creation of a Solid Waste Tax Service District which would function much like a Fire District. The size of the district and scope of services provided by the district would be determined by the Board. A Solid Waste Tax Service District would not impact the County General Fund but would be an independent special revenue fund. Options 5 & 6 propose to create a Solid Waste Franchise Agreement which could privatize rural curbside solid waste and/or rural curbside recycling. If Solid Waste collections are part of a comprehensive franchise agreement solution, unincorporated Orange County could be divided into districts which could be serviced by multiple private haulers. With either a county-wide franchise agreement or dividing the County into districts, a number of the existing twelve (12) private haulers may be displaced. Towns could opt in or opt out of a Franchise Agreement. Option 7 is the only option that would impact the County's General Fund Budget, by financing recycling via the General Fund, and would possibly have impact on the funding formula for Education, based on the 48.1% of the County's General Fund commitment to Education. Option 8 could eliminate rural curbside recycling, relying on Convenience Centers and Drop-off sites. Urban and multifamily curbside recycling would be left up to the Towns. Michael Talbert reviewed the options in more detail below: Municipal Solid Waste & Recycling Funding Options: 1) Eliminate all 3-R Fees & Create a County-Wide Solid Waste Management Authority. North Carolina General Statute's 153A-421 (Attachment 3) outlines how two or more units of local government may create a regional solid waste management authority by adopting substantially identical resolutions to that effect in accordance with the provisions of this Article. The resolutions creating a regional solid waste management authority and any amendments thereto are referred to in this Article as the "charter" of the regional solid waste management authority. Units of local government which participate in the creation of a regional solid waste management authority are referred to in this Article as "members". The purpose of a regional solid waste management authority is to provide environmentally sound, cost effective management of solid waste, including storage, collection, transporting, separation, processing, recycling, and disposal of solid waste in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (The Basic 3-R Fee could remain in place as part of decisions an Authority might make in determining revenue sources as services are extended county-wide.) 2) Keep only the Basic 3-R Fee in place and supplement recycling with the creation of a County-Wide Solid Waste Tax Service District to serve unincorporated areas of the County. Encourage the Towns to join the District, otherwise Urban and Multi-family curbside recycling would be left up to the Towns. 3) Eliminate all 3-R Fees including the Basic 3-R Fee & Create a County-Wide Solid Waste Tax Service District, to serve unincorporated areas of the County. Allow the Towns the option to join the District, otherwise Urban and Multi-family curbside recycling would be left up to the Towns. The new Solid Waste Tax Service District would fund the operation all five (5) Convenience Centers and recycling Drop-off Sites. 4) Keep the Basic 3-R Fee and Create a Solid Waste Tax Service District for current Rural Curbside Routes serving 13,730 households. Urban and Multifamily curbside recycling would be left up to the Towns. A Solid Waste Tax Service District could be expanded to include all of the unincorporated areas of Orange County. 5) Keep only the Basic 3-R Fee in place and create a County-Wide Solid Waste Franchise Agreement that could cover all Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collections and Recycling in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. Municipalities within the County could have the option to participate in the Franchise Agreement and negotiate a fee schedule that differs from the fees established by the County. An anticipated time line is discussed above. 6) Keep only the Basic 3-R Fee in place and create a County-Wide Recycling Franchise Agreement that could cover all curbside recycling in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. Municipalities within the County could have the option to participate in the Franchise agreement and negotiate a fee schedule that differs from the fees established by the County. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Collections by the Towns and private haulers in the unincorporated areas of the County would not change. 7) Keep only the Basic 3-R Fee in place and supplement recycling with a contribution from the General Fund, estimated to be $1.7 million annually, to keep Urban, Rural and Multifamily curbside recycling in place. A contribution of$1.7 million from the General Fund to the Solid Waste Fund would equal 1.1 cents on the County Property tax rate. The funding formula for Schools sets a target of 48.1% of General Fund Expenditures for Schools. This would add $1.6 million for a total cost to the County of$3.3 Million or 2.1 cents on the County Property Tax Rate to supplement recycling with a General Fund Contribution. 8) Keep the Basic 3-R Fee, eliminate all other 3-R Fees, and eliminate rural curbside recycling, relying on Convenience Centers and Drop-off-sites. Urban and Multifamily curbside recycling would be left up to the Towns. The County could increase the number of Recycling Drop-off-sites, both urban & rural, and increase the Basic 3-R fee to pay for the operation of the new Centers. Michael Talbert said that any and all of these options could be done. Commissioner McKee noted a correction to the discussion of item 3 and said that this item does eliminate the basic 3R fee, though 2 and 4 do not. Frank Clifton said there may be other tweaks on any of these options. He said this challenge was presented following a court decision it presents an opportunity to discuss solid waste county-wide. He said each of the towns has been pursuing other alternatives and these proposed options are a continuation of discussions from the transfer station. He reviewed and commented on the following recommendations: 1. The optimal long-range solution for Orange County in this situation may be the formation of a Solid Waste Management Authority provided for within North Carolina General Statutes. The hurdle to this approach is that at least one of the three primary Towns within the county must also agree to the creation of the Authority. A comprehensive approach to both solid waste and recycling services can then be pursued that is functional and fundable via many various options. Services can be provided by County staff, contracted, franchised, optional or mandatory programs can be developed and/or otherwise formulated to compensate for a transitional process that ensures solid waste management and recycling remain an environmental priority in Orange County. (Consensus on this approach among the towns may evolve into a protracted process; a timely decision would be essential to success.) 2. If no town is willing to work with the County on the Solid Waste Management Authority approach, then a county-wide Solid Waste Tax Service District approach is the more comprehensive and flexible option. It can provide services via County staffing, franchised, contracted, optional or mandatory programs or otherwise formulated approaches to both solid waste and recycling services as long as services are delivered and funded on some basis county-wide in the unincorporated areas of the County and can allow one or more towns to opt into the District once created. (This approach could include some combination of the Basic 3R Fees along with a county-wide tax.) 3. If either the Solid Waste Management Authority or the County-Wide Solid Waste Tax Service District approaches are not acceptable, then some configuration of a modified franchise approach to providing both solid waste and recycling services within the unincorporated areas of Orange County on a voluntary participation basis offers a solution. It allows existing participants in the unincorporated areas to gain the services (and pay for them directly) and does not require persons not using the services to pay for services they are not using (even though the services are available). Towns can pursue individual franchise agreements for services and/or be included in the County's efforts if they choose. (Again, the Basic 3R Fees could remain in place to support convenience center operations.) He said that the third option is more complicated due to the requirement to send out individual notices to each property owner involved, which would be 13,000 plus notices. He said that, in concept, the issue is to address what is in front of the Board now; but the reality is that there is an opportunity to pursue a more comprehensive approach and long term solution. He pointed out that this is not a staffing issue with the County. He said that the employees at the landfill are being transferred to other open spots. He pointed out that the County currently contracts the curbside services within all three towns. The county crews only pick up at multi-family units and governmental buildings, and the other areas are on month to month contracts for curbside recycling pickup. Chair Jacobs said, after receiving a letter from Mayor Stevens, he asked Mayor Stevens if he were amenable to working with Orange County. He said the Mayor indicated, yes. Chair Jacobs spoke with Mayor Chilton yesterday and was told that he was interested and Chair Jacobs received a letter last month indicating that the Town board would be interested in maintaining the same system and was interested in working with the County. Chair Jacobs said he had lunch with Mayor Kleinschmidt last week and brought up this issue. He said that if a tax service district is to be considered, that would involve the towns. He would like to talk to the three Mayors to flush out what would be possible. Frank Clifton said if a solid waste authority or tax district were implemented, it would not apply until the next fiscal year. Commissioner Price asked what would happen to private haulers under options 2, 3, and 4. Frank Clifton said there could be more than one hauler, even under a franchise situation. He said either the authority or the tax districts can maintain services as they are now, though the fee structure may have to change. Commissioner Price said she is more concerned about the 12 private haulers and their sustainability. Frank Clifton said right now there is no relationship with these haulers. He said it is an open market system. Chair Jacobs said, if it is a taxing district for recycling, there would be no effect on municipal solid waste haulers who are currently picking up household garbage. Commissioner Dorosin said Chair Jacobs talked with the jurisdictions and he needed a clarification on the options. He said that he understood that the taxing districts in 2, 3 and 4 don't require the municipalities to participate and the only one that requires participation is the solid waste management authority. He asked if any of the conversations with town leaders had included discussions of involvement in a solid waste management authority. Chair Jacobs said the conversations were addressing the current integrated recycling system, and the mayors were supportive of options that maintain this system and were theoretically committed to participation. He only brought up the waste authority option with one mayor, who was not very interested at this point. He noted that this will likely be a lengthy process and there will be many more discussions. Frank Clifton said the towns would have to agree to be part of a district in the countywide system. He said that the towns have the authority to regulate recycling in their own jurisdiction. If the towns desire to continue the current system, each of them would have to agree to opt in for recycling services that would be paid for with a countywide tax. Commissioner Dorosin noted that if the towns do not opt in the county could still move forward. Frank Clifton said yes, but it would be only for unincorporated areas. He said that a special tax can be enacted for the unincorporated areas, but the towns have to agree to participate. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the municipalities have the authority to levy fees, and would it help or hinder the Board in any of these options. John Roberts said the court said the county did not have the authority to levy a fee, but that the municipalities can levy fees. He said he believes the towns have that authority, but the town attorneys disagree. Commissioner Pelissier asked if it would help the situation if the towns agreed that there were such authority. John Roberts said it would result in a situation where the towns could, by resolution, declare the county has the right to continue the current service within town jurisdiction. The towns would then handle establishment of the fee through their budget process, and would authorize the county to collect the fee and run the program. He said this would be considerably easier. Commissioner Pelissier asked how long it would take to establish an authority. She also asked, if only one municipality agreed to participate, would it be possible to add others to the authority later on down the road. John Roberts said he does not know how long the establishment would take, likely several months at the least. He said it is a step by step procedural process. He said municipalities can opt in later. Frank Clifton said that if one town agreed to participate, the process could be started fairly quickly and then other towns could join later by following the process. He noted that the eastern part of the state has a large solid waste authority, involving 4 or 5 counties. He said that the towns all have their own solid waste collection, paid for out of general funds, and the focus should be on recycling, as this is why towns would join. Commissioner Rich said she would like to hear more information from Gayle Wilson on his professional opinion regarding the options that have been presented. Gayle Wilson said ultimately a solid waste management authority would be best, but this may take up to 3 years. He said he is not aware of any solid waste authority that doesn't have a transfer station, landfill, or some sort of infrastructure that serves as an anchor and a financial source. Gayle Wilson said that, for Option 8, he respectfully observes that it does not appear that the board is ready and able to enter into multiple siting processes for additional convenience centers and drop off sites. He said that Option 7 can be implemented fairly quickly but will not be a long term option. He said that Options 5-6, recommend franchising, and he does not think franchising of municipal collection is an appropriate method. He said the franchise option is a deal killer for jointly working with towns. He said franchised recycling collection tends to perform poorly. He said that district taxes seem to be the most viable option, either on the way to an authority, or in lieu of an authority. He said that Option 3 would need a year or so of study to figure out details. He said that the county wide district would be the easiest option, minus some equity issues. He said that if a county wide district is implemented, there would have to be a plan to extend services to the currently un-served areas. He said that a solid waste district that only includes the current service area or a slightly expanded area would be more complicated to set up but still has potential. Commissioner Rich asked if he wanted to combine options. Gayle Wilson said yes, maybe some variation of 2 and 4, maybe ending up with 3, once an evaluation is done of fees that can be consolidated. He said he is not sure this can be done in the short term. He said that countywide or existing service area would be best in the short term. He said that he would not look at an option that did not include the towns. Commissioner Rich asked if he was suggesting that the next step strategy is to engage the towns. Gayle Wilson said the board needs to coalesce around their favorite option to have a solid concept before going to the towns. Commissioner McKee said he wanted to provide clarification based on some emails he has received with misinformation about the recycling program. He said that he wants to make clear that no member of the Board of County Commissioners has mentioned anything about dismantling the recycling program. He said that he has had conversations with several town council members and there is some support on the part of a few people, but this is for future discussion. Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if an inter-local agreement be used as a short term bridge with the towns to continue the urban recycling program for a couple of years without depleting reserves or utilizing general funds. John Roberts said an inter-local agreement could be used, and he believes the towns do have that authority. He cited statute 168-17, subsection D, which backs up his belief but stressed that many of the town attorneys do not agree. Commissioner McKee said he is convinced that if there is not a discussion with the towns upfront, the result will be a fragmented system. Chair Jacobs said he has been chair of this board before, and it is difficult to get others to talk about solid waste. He said that the closure of the landfill will now force something to be done differently. He said that when the Board decided not to site a transfer station in Orange County, there was a commitment to explore partnerships with other jurisdictions. He said that the towns have had those conversations but the Board has not, which leaves a lot of opportunity to connect. He said he is interested in third party facilitation of pay as you throw. He said that, as far as the schools, there is an understanding of the difficult circumstances and he said that options 2, 3 and 4 would involve a separate fund. He also said it is possible to fold this into the solid waste enterprise fund or into a new fund. Chair Jacobs said there were seven people signed up to speak and then the Board can come back to what the best options are best to consider moving forward. Those issues will be researched and put on the agenda for the April 23 public hearing. Chair Jacobs said a letter had been received from staff with questions. He said that hopefully these questions will be answered during the discussions of options. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sue Scope spoke and said the following (which is included in hard copy form in the abstract): My name is Sue Scope. I am a parent of 2 teenagers that go to CHHS. I live in the unincorporated area of Orange County. As a parent, resident of OC, and someone who cares about the environment, I am speaking out tonight against the idea of franchising, because I believe that trash is a public responsibility. I believe that the government should always be at the helm of the trash disposal and trash management process. I know that Orange County has done an outstanding job of keeping all of the waste issues connected in order to improve disposal. For those who may not know, currently our public system integrates many of the pieces of this puzzle. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Convenience Sites b. Hazardous Waste Services. c. Government Building Recycling d. The Organics Program e. Commercial recycling of business waste Personally, I have been involved in the issues of waste and composting since last year. In November of 2012, my friend Bing Roenigk and I approached Todd LoFrese, the assistant superintendent of the Chapel Hill Carrboro School District and asked that polystyrene (ps) trays be removed from school lunch rooms. We knew that ps is considered a possible carcinogen by the EPA and FDA, and especially when heated, poses a chemical danger to humans. The heat aspect is important because our kids are eating hot meals off of these trays; and in particular, when a meal is especially good, the kids are scraping the tray to get as much food off of it as possible, thus increasing their exposure. In addition, they are not compostable, and take roughly 5,000 years to decompose. Todd and many other dedicated people, including Muriel Williman, Blair Pollack, Liz Cartano, David Dean, Carolyn Buckner, Amy Rickard, Amy Brooks, and others, helped us to understand this issue. I was truly surprised and encouraged by the sense of community and the dedication of all of the people who helped us. Through this issue, I realized that Orange County has a process that looks to the future. It exists when a Phillips Middle School parent can test and implement a program that now enables the schools to reduce the weight of their trash, as well as recycle milk cartons. It exists when schools are starting or growing student-led Sustainability Clubs. It exists when there are Sustainability Awards given out to those in the community who have made a difference in teaching the importance of the environment. The new elementary school in Chapel Hill will have many sustainability practices from the time its doors open. And it exists when two parents can ask for, and get the help of, so many of our public sector's employees in order to address a health issue. Timer went off, and her statement was cut short. She concluded with the following: So my primary purpose here tonight is to ask you to close the door on the franchise discussion. The manager's focus, while addressing, the letter of a legal issue that needs attention, is missing the primary point of this endeavor. The point is our children. So I am asking you to use that time to decide on the best way forward that uses government resources in the best way possible. Let's continue on that path and encourage each school, business, and homeowner to continue to make the interrelationship "the new normal" for our community. Bing Roenigk introduced herself and made the following presentation: For some of you that do not know, my past career was in local government in the financial and budget area. I am going to put my budget hat on here and express some concerns about the County Manager's proposal. 1. In reading the agenda abstract, the Manager proposes to use enterprise fund reserves to allow the County time to transition to an alternative solution. Typically, reserves are savings set aside for some specific future need or purpose. What are you deciding not to do if you spend the reserves on maintaining the integrated public recycling program? 1 just want to make sure that this is not the death knell of the integrated recycling program. 2. I question the cost-effectiveness in shifting from a centralized and integrated operation to a decentralized franchise operation. Administrative costs will be shifted to the schools, towns, and county because they will have to spend time searching for the best service/price. a. It seems like fees will be higher for many residents with this loss of economy of scale that is currently embedded in the fees for integrated public recycling services. - I understand that several years ago both school systems joined the public recycling program b/c it was a huge savings ($80K). Operational Concerns 1. By going to a franchise arrangement and allowing residents to "opt in", county oversight is removed and this, by its very nature, will reduce the effectiveness of public recycling program in terms of waste diversion commitment. Need consistency is what is recycled —when, where, what. We are better together than apart. 2. The county currently has a commercial composting program. Will this program continue to exist? Think of the million plus trays from the school systems that could be diverted to compost! Orange County is the only county in the state that provides this service! We need to continue to be the leaders! This is the future of waste diversion! CONCLUSION - Stop franchise discussion and efforts until all other options are vetted. - Maintain and expand integrated public recycling program Establish a short- and long-term plan to manage solid waste in Orange County in a comprehensive and sustainable manner that continues to further divert the current waste stream from the landfill. Include public input and a process for public recommendation in that plan. Final Comment: In making budget decisions, be penny wise, but not pound foolish when it comes to garbage. Jessica Bollinger, owner of the Efland Trash Service, said there are two issues she would like to address, and the first is the proposed waste franchise in Orange County. She said that by implementing this system, small business such as hers are in danger of being displaced. She said that residents of Orange County should have the option to choose which trash recycling services they utilize. She said that her company and other private companies are specifically designed to accommodate residents in rural areas and can travel down drives and roads that larger and heavier trucks cannot travel. She said her business also provides backdoor service to elderly and disabled customers, as well as recycling at no extra charge. She said that a waste franchise would have a negative impact on those special needs residents. She said that option 6 seems to provide the best opportunity for businesses like hers to remain in business. She said the second issue is the alternative dumping options due to the closing of the Orange County Landfill. She said that the only current option is to transport the trash to Durham, which is a 50 mile round trip and doubled dumping fees. She said that all other surrounding counties and landfills have denied use of their facilities. She said that, being a small company, these private businesses transport less than one ton of recycling or trash per trip and with the increased rates, mileage and time, will soon be out of business. She proposed that small, registered trash companies be allowed to dump at the convenience centers with a special permit and a flat rate pay system that is currently in use at the landfill. She said that this would include only companies that hand unload and separate trash and recycling. She said that a pay as you throw system might benefit individuals, but it would more than double small company fees. She said that this proposal would allow Orange County to continue collecting a portion of the revenues lost at the closing of the landfill. She said that her company alone paid over $7,000 in dumping fees. She said it would also support local business and local economy. Bonnie Hauser, Orange County Voice, read the following: We studied the rural curbside recycling 5 years ago. At the time, the county wanted to close convenience centers and introduce waste franchises. We surveyed the trash and recycling habits of rural households. Dr Karl Hoffman, demographer, led our team — and we had 881 responses from households throughout the county north and west of Chapel Hill. Based on our survey responses, 85% of rural residents recycle regularly, 60% compost yard waste, 48% compost kitchen waste. Given trends in composting, those numbers could be higher now. First some basics- The County's five convenience centers are the county's most important recycling service. The county's website reports that over 40% of the residential recyclables go to convenience centers and drop sites. That is over 5000 tons a year. The rural curbside recycling program is much smaller— about 15%, or just over 1800 tons a year. Today the county provides rural curbside recycling to roughly 13,500 rural households. Thousands of those households DO NOT USE THE SERVICE TODAY. They already opt out. Our survey, which was consistent with the county's own data, suggested that about 40% of the 13,500 households opted out. That's about 5000 families. Our survey asked why. Most respondents (about 80%) said it was easier to take their recyclables to the convenience centers when they took their trash. Others mentioned service issues, mostly access to their home and frequency of service. You may want to verify with the county, but we're guessing that thousands of families still opt out of rural curbside recycling. Since our waste reduction rates are at an all time high, there is no evidence that "opting out" has adversely impacted recycling rates in any way. There is an issue of fees. According to UNC's School of Government, the county is legally required to allow households to "opt out" of paying the curbside collection fee of$38 a year. We can't say how many people would opt out of the fee or how that impacts the economics of the program. In the interests of transparency, we hope you'll explore those economics further. We realize that the county is facing difficult economic issues with all aspects of trash and recycling. One thing is certain, rural residents care about recycling; and even though thousands already opt out of rural curbside recycling program, they recycle heavily and contribution to county's waste reduction results. Thank you. Rob Taylor introduced himself as a resident of unincorporated Orange County and a former Orange County Recycling Programs Manager (2005-2010). He referenced the seven municipalities in NC who assess a fee directly to residents for solid waste or recycling services; and he offered to provide this list if it would help convince the municipalities to think about that option. He mentioned that the Orange County Voice statement regarding the amount of material coming from rural areas. He said that the tonnage also includes the urban drop off sites as well, which serve urban businesses. He said that a franchise system where governments must engage directly with a private service provider is not the right solution for Orange County. He said these systems have substantially lower participation than the current systems and this would increase the amount of waste rather than optimizing recovery. He said that that the integration of the current systems increases efficiency, and this will be disrupted if the system is taken apart with the franchise plan. He noted that the rural route also serves parks, fire departments, businesses and other county facilities. He said that other municipalities have expressed desire to participate and the Board needs to find a way to make that work. He said that funding the recycling system out of reserves will undermine public recycling on funding the next fiscal year. This is because the money was saved for equipment. He said that the franchise should be rejected and a cooperative system put in place, which keeps everyone together. Amy Brooks represents her company, Brooks Contractor, with a hauling and composting facility in Chatham County and her business is contracted by Orange County Solid Waste to collect from 32 locations in the County. She said the venture into waste collection started with the cooperation of the county and serves environmentally minded residents. She feels that the only reason this program is on the chopping block is because it is so successful. She said that there is an environmental mess to clean up and a public to educate. She said that Orange County has been a light to lead the way and the surrounding communities are making moves toward implementing programs that follow the example. She said that 1,600 tons of waste has been collected and composted by her company in Orange County this fiscal year. She said that 4,000 cubic yards of compost and compost blends were also shipped out to local farms, community gardens, and landscape communities. She urged the Board not to let this program die. Anagha Kalvade introduced herself as a volunteer and coach for the Friends Recycling Team. She said that the team has been active and in the news lately. She noted that the project started with the announcement about the landfill closing and a study was done to look at how much material could have been saved from the landfill and sent to recycling. She said that over a period of 20 days, 690 pounds of recyclables ended up in the landfill. She said that a big part of the success of the project was the Solid Waste Management Team and she recognized their efforts. She said that there is a lot of education tied into this department, and she noted plans to execute this in all of the County schools. She said that if only cartons are recycled in these schools, it will account for 170,000 pounds of material. She said that the closing of the landfill presents the wrong time to put more burdens on schools and citizens and she stressed the need for education about recycling and composting. She expressed hope that the current system would not be changed. Commissioner McKee asked if there was an issue with the earlier request from Jessica Bollinger to allow small trash pickup businesses to dispose of waste at convenience centers. John Roberts said he does not know of any issues with this, and he referred to Gayle Wilson for input. Frank Clifton said those are convenience centers, not transfer stations, and there are some permitting issues. Gayle Wilson said he would have some concerns and would have to have discussions with waste management. He does think that this would potentially characterize the convenience centers as transfer centers and would subject them to permitting and a new arena of rules and regulations. He said that once these centers begin to receive commercial waste, it changes things and the state would have to interpret it. He said there would need to be considerable analysis before he would recommend this arrangement. Commissioner McKee said he just wanted clarification of this issue. Commissioner Rich said she would like to take franchise option off the list. She noted that there has been no positive input on this from anyone involved. Commissioner Dorosin said that he would like to look at the goals. He said that he feels there are three goals: 1) Continue to maximize recycling; 2) Ensuring the maximum equity for residents; and 3) Trying to ensure fairness for small businesses and county staff. He said with that in mind, the tax districts, the authority, or eliminating curbside would be the options that maximize the three goals. He asked for clarification that, with the tax districts, anyone in the district would be assessed a tax and everyone would be provided the service. Frank Clifton said in the case of a large lot of land, the relationship between the fee and the service is different now. He noted that everyone who pays the fee does not use the service, even though it is available, but the cost is linked to the estimates of service provided. He said that the tax would be applied by valuations within the district that would determine how much each individual paid, not necessarily the waste stream or usage. He said this has to be looked at more closely and there would be issues to work out and modifications be made over the years, based on the cost of the services. He said that the authority has more flexibility than the tax district in how revenue is raised. Commissioner Pelissier said her first choice is a solid waste authority although other things may have to be done in the meantime. She addressed the issue of equity, and noted that there were discussions about the convenience centers and charging access fees that were more expensive in rural areas than in urban areas. She asked if this might be a consideration in the current equity discussions with the tax district. Frank Clifton said that there can be a combination of countywide tax and user fees to accommodate for the equity issue. Commissioner Price said that there needs to be a look at the volume of the smaller haulers and consider that they are providing a convenience service for residents who would normally come the convenience centers anyway. She said she is also ready to remove the franchise option off the table. Commissioner McKee said he supports taking the franchise agreement off the table. He said that he feels the Board will have to move forward with discussion of the tax district or solid waste authority. He said that it makes him uncomfortable to move forward without a discussion with the three partnering municipalities. He said those discussions should not happen as an afterthought and he feels these conversations should happen before decisions are made. He noted that there will be an interim solution. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner McKee and said the conversations need to be opened up to everyone before decisions are made. She said that there also needs to be a fourth goal, to not use reserves for funding. She feels that in the long run, the authority is the way to go, but there is a process to get there and it took OWASA a number of years to get there. She said her suggestion would be to start with a tax district and move to an authority down the road. She suggested that the current rural district be kept. Commissioner Gordon said that there should be goals and recycling should be maximized. She said there is no information on how cost effective these plans are, and this makes it difficult to make a decision. She said there also needs to be a goal that the county will consult with the towns as potential partners, and there needs to be more analysis of the pros and cons of each option. She noted that this problem has been around for a long time and through all of the difficulties, the recycling program has been stellar and this needs to be maintained. Chair Jacobs said he would also add a goal of creating a system that enhances the possibility of a comprehensive solid waste system in partnership with the towns. He said he has no interest in an authority if it does not address solid waste. He stated his five goals as follows: 1) Cost effectiveness, 2) Maximize recycling, 3) Maximize equity, 4) Fairness to staff and haulers, and 5) a system that advances comprehensive waste reduction in partnership with the towns. Chair Jacobs said he is with the majority in wanting to get rid of the franchising option. He said that he sees the point of not using reserves, but he does not feel this is part of the basic goal of solid waste planning. He said this just needs to be part of the discussion, along with creation of a time frame and agreements with the municipalities and planning for a solid waste authority if that is the option that is chosen. He said that it seems that 2 options have really been the focus- Option 1, and some permutation of Options 2, 3 and 4. He made suggestions for moving forward. Commissioner McKee said he feels that the Board should not remove any funding option such as reserves. He said that the limited time and the long time frame of putting something in place need to be considered. Commissioner Dorosin agreed with all of the comments and said that he feels Option 8 should be part of the discussion, because the issue of serving the rural area falls to the Board. Frank Clifton suggested the choices be narrowed down and if the franchise option is off the table then the public haulers should be notified before the public hearing that their concerns no longer exist. He noted that the towns are in the same process as the county and will take a break in June. Chair Jacobs reviewed the discussion points, goals and options. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve: 1. Adopting 5 goals related to recycling and solid waste: a. Want a system that is cost effective; b. Want a system that maximizes recycling; c. Want a system that maximizes equity; d. Want a system that is fair to staff and private haulers; e. Want a system that advances the possibility of comprehensive waste reduction in partnership with the towns. 2. Consider options 2, 37 4 permutated into one option; consider option 1 for a solid waste authority for either a long term or alternative option; and leave on the table option 8 that would have a 3-R fee with no curbside recycling. 3. Hold a public hearing on April 23 where the three options will be presented. 4. Notify haulers that the Board is removing from options under consideration the franchising system. Chair Jacobs clarified that options 2, 3, and 4 were related to a countywide tax district; staff will provide pros and cons, with costs and revenue sources for each option, and a timetable for implementation of each option. Commissioner Gordon asked what was done with option 7, and Chair Jacobs said this option only addresses cost effectiveness and how to pay for things, without being an option in and of itself. Commissioner Gordon noted the statement of the motion should include the pros and cons, with costs and revenue sources, for each option, as the Chair previously said. Commissioner Pelissier said she does not understand of cost effectiveness and how this can be interpreted. Frank Clifton said that looking at the system as it is now, but there are cost efficiencies that could be acquired to deliver the same service or an expanded service, because of methodology used. He gave the example of an automated system with rollout cans providing labor and equipment savings that allow for a larger service district for the same cost. Commissioner Pelissier said this means that it is really more about efficiency in how things are done, rather than how charges or taxes are done. Frank Clifton noted that the least costly system for the county is to have more drop off sites as this eliminates drivers and trucks. He said that even this has pros and cons and all of these will have to be looked at. Chair Jacobs asked if it made sense to substitute efficiency for effectiveness in the motion. Commissioner Dorosin accepted this as a friendly amendment and Commissioner Rich seconded. Gayle Wilson asked if the discussion is regarding efficiency in rural and urban curbside. Chair Jacobs said that this discussion is related to recycling. Vote was taken on the following motion, which included the friendly amendment: 1. Adopting 5 goals related to recycling and solid waste: a. Want a system that is cost efficient; b. Want a system that maximizes recycling; c. Want a system that maximizes equity; d. Want a system that is fair to staff and private haulers; e. Want a system that advances the possibility of comprehensive waste reduction in partnership with the towns. 2. Consider options 2, 37 4 permutated into one option; consider option 1 for a solid waste authority for either a long term or alternative option; and leave on the table option 8 that would have a 3-R fee with no curbside recycling. 3. Hold a public hearing on April 23 where the three options will be presented. 4. Notify haulers that the Board is removing from options under consideration the franchising system. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Performance Evaluation Process for Three Staff Members Appointed by the Board — County Attorney, Clerk, and Manager The Board reviewed and considered approval of the performance evaluation process for three staff members appointed by the Board — County Attorney, Clerk to the Board and Manager, including proposed scopes of work. Attachment 1 is the Employee Evaluation Process for the County Attorney and Clerk to the Board, which includes the a) Process Prior to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Evaluation Meeting; b) the actual process during and after the BOCC Evaluation Meeting (Closed Session); c) Employee's Work Plan/Goals; and d) Employee's Current Salary and Status. At the March 12, 2013 work session, the Board of Commissioners discussed informally an evaluation process for the three staff members who are appointed by the Board. The Board's direction from that work session was for the sub-committee (Commissioner Renee Price, Commissioner Penny Rich and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker) to bring back a revised Performance Evaluation Process for the Clerk to the Board and the County Attorney, along with examples of evaluation forms for the Board to review; and to bring back a proposed scope of work for facilitating the County Manager's performance evaluation process with the use of a consultant with a funding option not to exceed $3,300. The proposed project goals for the evaluation process are: ❑ Provide County Attorney, Clerk, and Manager with feedback on her/his performance, identifying strengths and areas for improvement ❑ Foster effective communication and strengthen working relationship between Board of Commissioners and County Attorney, Clerk, and Manager ❑ Link performance evaluation to decision about compensation for coming year There is a financial impact of up to $3,300 associated with the County Manager's performance evaluation process. Funding would come from the Clerk to the Board's annual budget. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to accept attachment 1 as the Orange County Board of Commissioners evaluation process for county attorney and clerk to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs clarified that the process will include a conversation with the employee and a conversation with the board before any feedback is given to the employee. Commissioner Gordon noted that there will be a review soon and, to her knowledge, there has been no evaluation instrument adopted. Donna Baker said that there are proposed forms, and she mentioned the issue of hiring a consultant for the manager review. Chair Jacobs suggested there be two more motions, one regarding the evaluation instrument and one regarding the manager. Commissioner Gordon said that the forms cannot be changed much at this point, but that by the end of the process there should be an evaluation of the evaluation process. She said that the two evaluation instruments presented are very different from each other. She suggested that the instrument should conform to the process with regard to rating categories. She said the rating scales should be standardized. Donna Baker suggested that a consultant look over the forms. She suggested that the current forms could be used now because of time constraints. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the board adopt the forms for this evaluation, with the changes that will conform the evaluation forms to the process. Commissioner Gordon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Rich, that the evaluation process 1) Conforms to the adopted procedures, 2) has a standardized rating scale, and 3) re-visits the instruments subsequent to the review of the attorney and the clerk. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Donna Baker asked about supportive documentation, such as information from prior evaluations. She asked if this is acceptable to attach to the evaluation. Commissioner Gordon said yes. Commissioner Rich made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Price to appropriate up to $3,300 to work with a consultant in developing a performance evaluation process for the manager. Commissioner Dorosin said when this was discussed earlier he expressed his opinion that he does not believe an outside consultant is needed to evaluate the manager; he would advocate an internal process. Commissioner McKee asked what the Board is hoping to achieve with the consultant. Commissioner Rich said it seems there is no consistent way to review the manager and when a consultant was brought in to discuss this, she felt there needed to be more consistency. She said that the manager is happy to set this up. Commissioner Rich has worked with the consultant in question and she is experienced in this area. Commissioner McKee said he is conflicted because this is a lot of money to be spent, but he has participated in two of these evaluations and he did not feel it was fair to the manager or the county. He said he will support this, although he has some reservations. Commissioner Price said the total amount may not need to be spent. She said that with nothing currently in place, the consultant can be very helpful and in the future there will be something standardized in place. Commissioner Pelissier said she does not have a problem with steps one and two, which involve coming up with the process, but she does have a problem with spending money to compile the ratings. She said she does not want someone else to be part of that process. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Price and Commissioner Rich); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Pelissier) MOTION PASSED 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Orange County Arts Commission —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Arts Commission. The Arts Commission will be awarding their Spring 2013 grant allocations in June and have indicated that experienced Board members are needed for choosing the recipients of these grants. The newly adopted Board of County Commissioners Advisory Board policy states: • No person appointed to an Orange County advisory board shall serve on that board for more than two consecutive terms of three years each. • Extension of a member's term may be approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners if it is determined that it is in the best interest of Orange County to allow an individual to continue to serve. Therefore, the Arts Commission would like for the following members to remain on the Arts Commission Board for an extended period through the Spring grant allocation. • Appointment to an extended term for Ms. Leah Rade, Ms. Bronwyn Merritt and Mr. Charles Hochman for up to six months or until replacements are appointed. (The regular terms for each expired 03/31/2013). Position Number Representation Expiration Date 6 Ms. Leah R. Rade At-Large 09/30/2013 7 Ms. Bronwyn Merritt At-Large 09/30/2013 14 Mr. Charles Hochman At-Large 09/30/2013 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint to extended terms: Ms. Leah Rade, Ms. Bronwyn Merritt and Mr. Charles Hochman for up to six months or until replacements are appointed. (The regular terms for each expired 03/31/2013). VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council. The Parks and Recreation Council will be completing the ongoing Parks and Recreation Master Plan within the next three months. Ms. Dickinson's experience will be of great assistance during this transition. The newly adopted Board/Commission advisory policy states: • No person appointed to an Orange County advisory board shall serve on that board for more than two consecutive terms of three years each. • Extension of a member's term may be approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners if it is determined that it is in the best interest of Orange County to allow an individual to continue to serve. Therefore, the Parks and Recreation Council would like for the Ms. Denise Dickinson to remain on the Parks and Recreation Council for six months or until a replacement is appointed. (The regular term for Ms. Dickinson expired March 31, 2013.) The following appointments are for Board consideration: • Appointment to an extended term for Ms. Denise Dickinson for position #10. • Appointment to a first full term, expiring 03/31/2016 for Ms. Tori Williams Reid to fill the vacant Hillsborough Township position. • Appointment to a first full term, expiring 03/31/2016 for Ms. Jamie Paulen to fill the at- large position for the expiring term of Mr. Keith Bagby. • Appointment to a first partial term, expiring 03/31/2015 for Mr. Michael Stewart to fill the vacant Cheeks Township position. Position Number Representation Expiration Date 10 Ms. Denise Dickinson Hillsborough Town Limits 09/30/2013 2 Ms. Tori Williams Reid Hillsborough Township 03/31/2016 5 Ms. Jamie Paulen At-Large 03/31/2016 6 Mr. Michael Stewart Cheeks Township 03/31/2015 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint to the Parks and Recreation Council: • Appointment to an extended term for Ms. Denise Dickinson for position #10, with six months or until a replacement is appointed. • Appointment to a first full term, expiring 03/31/2016 for Ms. Tori Williams Reid to fill the vacant Hillsborough Township position. • Appointment to a first full term, expiring 03/31/2016 for Ms. Jamie Paulen to fill the at- large position for the expiring term of Mr. Keith Bagby. • Appointment to a first partial term, expiring 03/31/2015 for Mr. Michael Stewart to fill the vacant Cheeks Township position. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. Equalization and Review Board —Appointment The Board will revisit an appointment to the Board of Equalization and Review. John Roberts said when this appointment first came up at the last meeting, Commissioner Dorosin brought up the question of a vote for his partner, which John Roberts interpreted as meaning business partner but which was, in fact, his spouse. He said that in this event, Commissioner Dorosin should have been excused from voting on this since the general voting statute states that a Commissioner should not vote in issues that involve their own financial interest. He recommended that the appointment be rescinded and the nomination be re-done with Commissioner Dorosin be excused from the vote. Commissioner Pelissier made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Price to rescind the appointment of Ms. Bronwyn Merritt to the E&R Board. This motion was tabled. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to recuse Commissioner Dorosin from participating in the next two votes. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Dorosin recused) The earlier motion was returned to the table. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Dorosin is recused) A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Ms. Bronwyn Merritt to the E&R Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs suggested a discussion in May regarding appointments, vetting, and fiduciary responsibilities. Commissioner Dorosin said he regularly refers to his wife as his partner and this was not an intention to mislead. 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) Commissioner Dorosin - none Commissioner Pelissier gave a heads up that there will be a revised plan for partnership for homelessness coming before the Board. She said there have been federal changes in legislation that precipitate some of the information on best practices. She said Triangle Transit is doing a study, along with other partners in the region, to look at fees, which have not changed since 2005. She said that the system cannot be sustained if the fees are never increased. She said there were some delays in the light rail application. Commissioner Price said she attended Durham Tech BOT meeting and continues to get positive feedback on having the campus here. She said that enrollment is going up in both Orange and Durham Counties. Commissioner McKee thanked staff for adding attachment 6 to the recycling abstract. He said he and Commissioner Price met with residents from northern part of the county and discussed concerns about the Northern Human Services Center and the interest in seeing this move forward. He said that Commissioner Price's comments about meeting dates reflect the concerns of those residents, that the discussions be held in Hillsborough, rather than in the southern part of the county. Commissioner Gordon — none Commissioner Rich said she meant to read the proclamation regarding Sexual Assault Awareness Month and she wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. She said that she visited Efland Cheeks Elementary for a discussion on what a County Commissioner does. She said the kids were great and she learned about the school and its history. She said there was a good discussion of politics and local government, and the students were interested in visiting the Board. She suggested finding a way to make this happen. Chair Jacobs said that he, Commissioner McKee and the Manager are meeting with Congressman Price on April 15th and will solicit from Board members, any issues to be discussed. He said there are also efforts to set up a meeting with the Chatham County Commissioners in May and the next group will be the Alamance County Commissioners. He noted to Commissioner Pelissier that this will allow discussion of the County line. He said there was a school collaboration meeting last week and discussed pre-k classes and the counting of those classes toward school capacity. He said there will need to be more discussion of this. He said there was also good discussion of school funding trends. He noted that the Junior Livestock Sale is next Thursday. He noted that the Board is awaiting a response from the head of Triangle Transit to set up a meeting with Commissioner Pelissier. Commissioner Pelissier said that Triangle Transit will be writing back in response to the letter. 13. Information Items • March 19, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • BOCC Chair Letter Responding to Petitions during March 7, 2013 Regular Meeting • BOCC Chair Letter Responding to Petitions during March 19, 2013 Regular Meeting • Memorandum Regarding Mattress Recycling Pilot Final Report 14. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Price to add a closed session to the agenda for the purpose stated below: Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4): To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to go into closed session at 10:25pm for the purpose of: Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4): To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body. VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon seconded by Commissioner McKee to reconvene into regular session at 10:50pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board