Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-10-2013 APPROVED 2/18/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING December 10, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young 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 called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He asked Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board, to introduce Thom Freeman, the new Assistant to the Clerk. Donna Baker introduced Thom Freeman as the newest member of the Clerk's office. She said he comes from the Department of Social Services. He will be in the re-instated, full- time position of Assistant to the Clerk, with a focus on boards and commissions. She noted that this position was eliminated due to staff budget reductions in 2010 and was recently re- instated by the Board of Commissioners during the past budget cycle. She said there were many facets of the position that were unable to be addressed during the absence of a full time position, such as chair meetings, staff orientations, and volunteer recruitment and recognition. She said the re-instatement of this position will help bring things back up to "full throttle" in the coming months. Thom Freeman said he is looking forward to the challenge. Chair Jacobs reviewed the following agenda changes and items at the Commissioners' places: - PowerPoint - Item 4-b — Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FYE 6/30/2013 - Agenda change to Item 6-f- Resolution of Approval — Hughes-Morgan Conservation Easement Donation- - This must be removed from the consent agenda to discuss whether the BOCC wishes to accept the conservation easement without the liability insurance provisions found in section 5(c) of the draft conservation easement. The grantor objects to the liability insurance requirements. - Item 6-g —Adoption of the Final Financing Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of $10,500,000 of Installment Financing to Finance Various County and School Capital Investment Plan Projects and County Equipment. This must be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. If approved, this item will be moved to 5-a. - Yellow Sheet— Item 5-a - Blue Sheet— Item 11-d - Commission for the Environment- revised face sheet (Ms. Enoch does not wish to be reappointed) - Lavender sheet— Roster and information on boards and commissions - White Sheet - County Manager search process update from consultant 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 reiterated the ICLEI issue again, and he asked the Board to remove their membership from ICLEI. Chair Jacobs surprised Mr. O'Leary by giving him a framed copy of the cancellation of Orange County's membership in ICLEI. Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 7:07 pm. 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 Commissioner Gordon petitioned the Board to request that the Tax Administrator provide an update on the addressing ordinance at the January 2014 meeting. Commissioner McKee asked Michael Talbert about the on-going discussions with Triangle Transit prior to the January 23rd meeting. He asked if information regarding these discussions will be forwarded to the Board. Michael Talbert said an interim report has been issued, and this will be in the Commissioners' boxes this week. Commissioner Price petitioned the Board to add the later amendments (11-27) to the Bill of Rights Day Proclamation, Human Rights Day, and Constitution Day. Chair Jacobs expressed his support of honoring the entire constitution. Commissioner Dorosin said, in anticipation of the budget season, he would like to receive information from the school boards on all areas where the two school systems collaborate or share resources. Commissioner Gordon asked Commissioner Dorosin for the specific time period he is requesting. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see this for the past five years. Chair Jacobs said he has petitioned for and still has not received a report from Solid Waste staff on their meeting with the small, private solid waste haulers. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement Award The Board recognized the Financial Services staff of the Orange County Financial Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) Certificate of Achievement for the June 30, 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Clarence Grier read the following background information: GFOA is an internationally recognized organization that offers guidance and support to local and state government budget and finance professionals throughout the United States and Canada. The GFOA Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition a government can receive in the areas of governmental accounting and financial reporting. The attainment of the award represents a significant achievement by a government and its management. In order to receive this award, the County must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized CAFR. Additionally, the County's CAFR must undergo a stringent program of review to assess if the County has proficiently applied governmental accounting and financial reporting for the fiscal year under review. The Report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. This year marks the thirty-first year that Orange County has received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. Eligibility standards, reviews, and expectations for the award have become more complex, demanding and stringent each year. County staff believes that the CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 will meet the Certificate of Achievement Program requirements and will be submitting it to the GFOA. Clarence Grier introduced the following members of his staff who were in attendance: Howard Fitts, David Cannell, and Shari Rasberry. Chair Jacobs expressed the Board's appreciation for this department and the work they do. b. Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FYE 6/30/2013 The Board received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013. Clarence Grier said the CAFR reports on all financial activity of the County for the fiscal year July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Martin Starnes and Associates, a firm of Certified Public Accountants, audited the financial statements. He introduced one of the auditors from Martin-Starnes and Associates, Marcie Spivey, who presented the findings of the audit. She reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Orange County 2013 Audited Financial Statements Audit Highlights ❑ Unmodified opinion ❑ No Significant Deficiencies noted ❑ No Material Weaknesses Identified Budget vs. Actual General Fund Budget Actual Variance Revenues $183,580,100 $186,502,389 $2,922,289 Expenditures 179,037,959 170,330,053 8,707,906 Other Financing (4,542,141) (9,310,633) (4,768,492) Sources Change in Fund $6,861,703 $6,861,703 Balance Tax Collection Percentages (bar graph) 2013 - 98.4% 2012 — 98.49% Fund Balance History (General Fund) (bar graph) 2013 - $54,679,607 2012 - $47,859,506 Fund Balance Available fund balance as defined by the Local Government Commission (LGC) is calculated as follows: Total Fund Balance Less: Non spendable (not in cash form, not available) Less: Stabilization by State Statute (by state law, not available) Available Fund Balance This is the calculation utilized as the basis for comparing you to other units and calculating your fund balance percentages. Fund Balance Position-General Fund Total Fund Balance $54,679,607 Non spendable - 39,954 Stabilization by State Statute - 9,736,214 Available Fund Balance $44,903,439 Available Fund Balance 2012 $39,425,710 Increase in Available FB $ 5,477,729 Available Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures and Transfers out—General Fund 2013 —24.70% 2012 —22.50% Major Enterprise Funds SportsPlex Solid Waste Fund Fund Total operating revenue $ 2,925,628 $ 8,126,576 Total operating expenses $ 2,850,996 $ 6,703,466 Operating Income (Loss) $ 74,632 $ 1,423,110 Major Enterprise Funds Cash Flow Unrestricted Debt Service From Operations Net Assets Solid Waste $ 702,747 $ 1,243,669 $ 3,082,630 SportsPlex $ 683,767 $ 514,775 $ 851,874 Marcie Spivey said revenues increased over expenditures, primarily due to an increase in collected property tax. She said the County's property tax has a good collection rate, and it is better than the state average. She said expenditures were also less than budgeted, as a result of continued directives to the departments to hold cost. She said the one increase was in the "other financing sources", which includes debt services and transfers among other funds, such as school capital costs. Chair Jacobs suggested some Commissioners might want to meet with Clarence Grier over the break to discuss these numbers in greater detail. He asked if Clarence Grier would be available to meet with the Commissioners if needed. Clarence Grier said he would be available. 5. Public Hearings- ADDED TO AGENDA: a. Public Hearing and Adoption of the Final Financing Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of$10,500,000 of Installment Financing to Finance Various County and School Capital Investment Plan Projects and County Equipment Clarence Grier noted the yellow abstract at the Commissioner's places, as this item was removed from the consent agenda and added under public hearings. Tonight he is asking the Board to conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on the final financing resolution authorizing the issue of$10,500,000 of installment financing to finance various County and School Capital Investment Plan Projects and County equipment, including the proposed transfer of Culbreth Middle School, including the buildings and the related real estate, from the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City School Board to Orange County to facilitate the financing of a new science wing at the school; and adopting the final financing resolution authorizing the issue of $10,500,000 of installment financing to finance various County and School Capital Investment Plan Projects and County equipment. Clarence Grier said that during its November 5, 2013 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved the financing of various County and School Capital projects and County equipment (Attachment 1). Staff requested and received bids for the proposed installment financing from the following financial institutions: 1. SunTrust Institutional and Government Inc. 2. Bank of America Public Capital Corp 3. PNC Bank 4. First Tennessee Bank Clarence Grier said Bank of America was selected as the financially responsive and responsible bidder. He said the financing agreement will be subdivided into two installment financing agreements, one for the financing of the capital investment projects and one for the financing of the equipment. He said the financing terms of the two installment financing agreements will be as follows: 1. Installment Financing Agreement 1 — Capital Projects - $8.16 million in total debt service, Interest Rate —2.41%, Average debt service over 15 years totals $544,252. 2. Installment Financing Agreement 1 — Equipment - $3.88 million, Interest Rate — 1.24%, Average debt service over 5 years totals $776,537 Clarence Grier said the average debt service would be $803,098 over the term of the installment financing periods. He said the installment financing method requires that the mortgage be for the property, school, land and buildings. He said this means the County must own the Culbreth Middle School and the proposed science wing. He said the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) have agreed to transfer the property to the County for financing with a lease back agreement of$1 per year until the end of the 15 year term when the property will revert back to CHCCS. Clarence Grier said the state law said such a transfer can occur only after a public hearing. Commissioner Gordon noted that the only difference between this item on the consent agenda and on the public hearing is the requirement of a public hearing on the transfer of the buildings and related real estate from CHCCS to Orange County for the 15 year term, to facilitate the financing of the new science wing at the school. Clarence Grier said that is correct. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt the final financing resolution authorizing the issue of$10,500,000 of installment financing to finance various County and School Capital Investment Plan Projects and County equipment, including the proposed transfer of Culbreth Middle School, including the buildings and the related real estate, from the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools to Orange County for a 15 year term, to facilitate the financing of a new science wing at the school; and adopting the final financing resolution authorizing the issue of$10,500,000 of installment financing to finance various County and School Capital Investment Plan Projects and County equipment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon expressed her appreciation for the Board's approval of these projects, especially the Culbreth Science Wing. She said this will allow the students at Culbreth Middle School to have science instruction that is appropriate for the 21 st century. Chair Jacobs said he would like to figure out a way to investigate which banks the Board should or should not do business with, based on the relationship of the business with the community. He said if lenders are discriminatory or dishonest in their practices, the County should not do business with them. Commissioner Dorosin said every bank gets a Community Reinvestment Act rating that is available to the public. He said there is an organization called Community Reinvestment Association NC (CRANC), that does all of the research for this. He said this would be a good place to start. Clarence Grier said he would follow up on this. 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 6-f- Resolution of Approval — Hughes-Morgan Conservation Easement Donation--must be removed from the consent agenda to discuss whether the BOCC wishes to accept the conservation easement without the liability insurance provisions found in section 5(c) of the draft conservation easement. The grantor objects to the liability insurance requirements. • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the remaining items from the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda f. Resolution of Approval — Hughes-Morgan Conservation Easement Donation The Board considered a resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of a conservation easement to protect a portion of the Hughes-Morgan property and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to sign. John Roberts said this item was removed from the consent agenda in order for the Board to discuss whether the BOCC wishes to accept the conservation easement without the liability insurance provisions found in section 5(c) of the draft conservation easement. He said the grantor objects to the liability insurance requirements. John Roberts said the landowners do not want to pay for liability insurance of $300,000, which is stated in the document. He said this amount was removed from these easement documents by the past attorney in 2002. He recommends that some type of liability insurance needs to be attached to a conservation easement. He said if the Board wants to approve this subject to liability negotiations between staff and landowners, this would be fine. He does not recommend that the Board waive the liability insurance provision, though this is possible. Chair Jacobs asked if there had been some investigation of the cost to the property owner. Michael Talbert said their risk manager followed up on this and found out that it would cost the landowners about $100 per year for this type of insurance. He said it is his opinion that the insurance is needed as part of the documentation. Commissioner Price asked John Roberts for clarification on his statement about allowing the approval and then letting staff follow up with the landowner regarding the insurance amount. John Roberts said the landowner wanted a reduced amount of liability insurance. He said the Board could approve the resolution and authorize the manager to negotiate the insurance. Commissioner Rich asked if there are any precedents or best practices that can be referred to for this issue. John Roberts said the best practice amount would be $500,000, however this is an 11 acre easement, and there is no case in North Carolina that attaches liability to a conservation easement holder. He does not object to a lower liability amount. Chair Jacobs said he spoke the director of the N.C. Land Trust, and this organization requires insurance liability on all easements. Commissioner Gordon said she feels that the insurance provision is reasonable, and the Board should approve the resolution as it stands. Michael Talbert said this is also the manager's recommendation. Commissioner Gordon noted that there is a mis-numbered provision, and she asked for a clarification on this. John Roberts said there is a numbering error on the abstract; however this has already been corrected on the proposed executed document. Commissioner McKee asked if the landowner has provided a desired figure for insurance. John Roberts said he is not aware of any figure that has been provided. Commissioner Dorosin asked for an explanation of why this insurance is necessary. John Roberts said the insurance provides liability against any negligent activity on the property that result in damage to someone who then decides to sue the County. He said N.C. has no case law on liability to a conservation easement holder. He said other states do have this. He said there have been liability cases where a third party was injured due to a lack of monitoring on the conservation restrictions. He said this is why he recommends that there be liability insurance in the easement requirements. Commissioner Dorosin asked for more clarification on this. He proposed the example of a resident trespassing on the easement and being killed by a falling tree. John Roberts gave the example of a resident drowning on the easement because of an unnatural object that shouldn't be there, such as a tire swing or some other object that is man- made. He said the easement is supposed to be a wild conservation easement that is maintained in its natural state. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the easement is accessible to the public. John Roberts said only the landowner and his guests may be on the easement. Commissioner Pelissier said she is confused about this insurance for the easement versus any insurance the property already owns on the land. John Roberts said the land is not developed, so he does now know what insurance the owner would have. Commissioner Pelissier asked if this is not part of the landowner's property. John Roberts said the only dwelling on it is a mobile home. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to approve the Manager's recommendation for the Board to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the conservation easement and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document expected to occur on or about December 31, 2013. Commissioner Rich asked what would happen if the landowner does not agree. She asked if the easement would be lost. John Roberts said that is what would happen. Michael Talbert said this is under a time constraint of December 31, 2013. Commissioner Price asked for clarifications on what the land owners would agree to pay. Rich Shaw said he has spoken with the owners, but there has not been an opportunity to negotiate a price. He said the owners have objected to this particular provision, as they believe the specified amount is too high. The owners also feel it is a burden to have the County as a third party. Commissioner Price asked if this has been an issue with other easements. Rich Shaw said this has been included in about 80 percent of Orange County's easements. He said this has been a standard provision for the past 6 to 8 years. Commissioner McKee asked who handles the reporting requirement. Rich Shaw said the insurance company handles this requirement. Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if negotiating this, after requiring this insurance for the past 6 years, would set a precedent for negotiations for every one going forward. John Roberts said no. Commissioner Gordon said she had thought this provision would be reasonable because not including it it would set a precedent for something different. She said this seemed wise, given that there is no firm idea on where the land owner stands. She does not feel that this is a black and white issue, but this has been the precedent for the past 5 or 6 years. She said it is hard to make the decision without knowing if the owners want to do this for any amount of money. Chair Jacobs said the Board should keep in mind that these landowners are donating this easement to Orange County and should be treated accordingly. He said, when the County sells the notion of donating easements, the owners are told it is possible to negotiate any of the terms. He would like to know what items are non-negotiable moving forward. . Chair Jacobs asked John Roberts if it is possible for this item to come back for negotiation if staff presents this and the owners don't want to meet the rate. John Roberts said if it goes forward as is, there would be no negotiation. He said the manager can be given the authority to negotiate, but the current motion does not include this. Commissioner Gordon confirmed that, if the Board approves this as is, it cannot be negotiated later. Commissioner Pelissier said since person is donating the easement the Board should negotiate. She said this would not be the case if this was not a donation. Commissioner McKee suggested a friendly amendment to Commissioner Gordon's motion, to authorize manager to negotiate with the landowners Commissioner Gordon said she would not accept friendly amendment. She feels this should be a separate motion. VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 4 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Price) Motion fails. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to authorize the manager to negotiate with the landowners and then adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the conservation easement and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document expected to occur on or about December 31, 2013. Commissioner Gordon asked if this is the whole motion, including the negotiation. Commissioner Price said yes. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are any constraints on the manager's authority in Commissioner Price's motion. Commissioner Price said there are no limitations in this motion. She concurs with Commissioner Pelissier, since this is a donation of land. Commissioner Pelissier said was going to offer a friendly amendment that would not allow negotiation of no liability. She does not feel that an amount should be listed, but the negotiation should be whatever the manager considers to be reasonable, with the exception of zero liability. Commissioner Price said she would accept this friendly amendment. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that under this motion, the manager would have the authority to negotiate any amount of insurance, except zero dollars. He said this could include one penny or one dollar. Commissioner Pelissier said technically yes, but she does not believe the manager would negotiate that amount. Commissioner Gordon said she understands that there needs to be some liability insurance. She asked if the attorney or the manager have any suggested verbiage to convey the intent of the Board. Michael Talbert said the manager's recommendation is $300,000, but he will negotiate whatever the Board directs. He said this is donated land, but that also means donated liability, and there needs to be enough insurance to cover this. Commissioner Gordon said the answer from the manager is no, but the attorney said as long as there is some liability insurance, it is okay. John Roberts said a reasonable amount of liability insurance is ok, but he cannot say what that is. He said he feels that $300,000 is reasonable, but $200,000 may also be reasonable. He said if the authority is given, he and the manager could come up with a reasonable amount. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification that, if this motion stays, the manager could negotiate reasonable liability coverage. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner Price asked if the County could potentially be sued, even if there is liability insurance from the owner. John Roberts said he does not see why the County would not be sued if something happens on the easement area; however he cannot say that the County would be held liable, as N.C. law has not addressed this issue. Commissioner Price said she could add "reasonable" to her motion. Chair Jacobs re-read it the motion to include this addition. Commissioner Dorosin said the Board is negotiating a contract and giving the manager the authority to negotiate the financial terms of that contract. He thinks the Board has to give direction on the parameters of this, and right now those parameters are anything over a $1. He said he is not comfortable with that. He suggested the Board could put forth this offer of $300,000 with the option for the landowners to make a counteroffer. He said the other option is to go into closed session and set a bottom line for the terms of negotiation. He said it is not good form to negotiate the terms of a contract publicly. Chair Jacobs noted that the goal is to accommodate the property owner before the end of the fiscal year. He said this does not allow enough time to do everything Commissioner Dorosin suggested. Chair Jacobs reviewed the motion again. VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5: (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Gordon, Chair Jacobs, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Rich,) A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Chair Jacobs to authorize the Manager to negotiate with the landowners, with a $200,000 lower limit, and then adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the conservation easement and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document expected to occur on or about December 31, 2013. Commissioner Dorosin suggested a friendly amendment stating that $200,000 is the amount of insurance the Board wants. Commissioner McKee accepted this amendment. Chair Jacobs accepted this amendment. Commissioner Gordon clarified that the liability indemnification would now say $200,000 instead of$300,000. Chair Jacobs said yes. Commissioner McKee said this addresses the issues the land owner had with the level of insurance, and it gives the Board some level of coverage that is above just a courtesy. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to ask staff to come up with parameters of what should be included in conservation easements, including what can and cannot be negotiated. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs asked John Roberts for clarification on the ultimate liability that the County has since the County already has insurance. John Roberts said sovereign immunity is only applicable up to the limits of the insurance that is purchased, and it is not applicable anytime a County purchases liability insurance. a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from October 1, 8 and December 2, 2013 (excerpts) 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 nineteen (19) taxpayers with a total of twenty (20) 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 four (4) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. NC State Firemen's and Rescue Squad Annual Certification Roster The Board approved the certification requirements for the Fire Marshal's Division to participate in the North Carolina State Firemen's Association for the year 2013 and authorized the Chair to sign. e. Approval of Financing Arrangement and Fund Balance Appropriation for Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. to Purchase a Replacement Fire Truck The Board approved a request from Orange Rural Fire Department No. 1, Inc. to enter into a financing arrangement to purchase a fire truck, authorize the Board of Commissioners' Chair to sign the appropriate documents related to the financing arrangement, and appropriate $70,000 from the District's County-held fund balance. h. Proclamation — Bill of Rights Day The Board adopted a proclamation to officially recognize Bill of Rights Day in Orange County during the month of December and authorized the Chair to sign. 7. Regular Agenda a. Assessment of Jail Alternatives and Jail Development The Board received a progress update regarding the Orange County Jail development; considered approving a professional services agreement with Solutions for Local Government in the amount of$24,665 to consult with the County regarding jail alternatives; and considered approving a professional services agreement with Solutions for Local Government in the amount of$26,400 to consult with the County regarding jail facility programming, design guideline development, integration of potential jail alternative programs, and architectural design selection process development. Cheryl Young reviewed the following goals: 1) For the Board to receive a progress update regarding the Orange County Jail development; 2) to approve a professional services agreement with Solutions for Local Government in the amount of$24,665 to consult with the County regarding jail alternatives; and 3) to approve a professional services agreement with Solutions for Local Government in the amount of$26,400 to consult with the County regarding jail facility programming, design guideline development, integration of potential jail alternative programs, and architectural design selection process development. Cheryl Young reviewed the following background information from the abstract: In October 2012, the North Carolina Council of State ("COS") approved a 50 year Land Lease with Orange County for the purpose of a permanent Orange County jail facility. The Board of County Commissioners authorized the execution of the Lease in June of 2013. Governor Pat McCrory completed the full execution of the lease on September 4, 2013, marking the "Effective Date" of the Lease. The terms of the Lease allow a thirty-six month period for period for the County to design and begin construction of the jail facility, and an additional thirty-six month period to finish construction and begin operation of the facility. In anticipation of the new jail, the BOCC established an Assessment of Jail Alternatives Work Group to undertake a comprehensive assessment of jail alternatives programs and the impact each program may have on inmate population. The BOCC requested that the Work Group review the charge set forth in Attachment 3 and recommend whether changes to the charge were needed. The Work Group reviewed the charge and recommends the charge be expanded to include additional program evaluation and evaluation of certain processes that may impact jail populations. The expanded charge is set forth in the scope of work set forth in the Professional Services Agreement Jail Alternatives included in Attachment 4. Jeff Thompson reviewed the following information from the abstract: Since September staff has coordinated the necessary boundary survey, environmental site assessment, initial geotechnical assessment, and title work to inform the architectural and engineering design activities contemplated to begin in the spring of 2014. Staff intends to complete this initial development work in the next few weeks. He said that staff recommends that Solutions in Local Government assist the County in developing a set of facility programming and design criteria to inform the most effective selection process for the professional services design firm that will be charged with designing and overseeing construction of the facility. In developing the facility programming guidelines in advance of the architect selection benefits the County by: 1) first allowing pertinent County staff (Sheriff, Courts, Asset Management Services)to work on a program without the pressure of building biases inherent with programming with the ultimate design team; 2) allowing a more effective selection process for the design team since the major programming and operations decisions would already be selected and validated (thereby allowing the focus of the selection process to truly focus on the actual qualifications of the design candidates); and 3) providing the most return on investment since the prospective consultant is working with the Jail Alternatives Work Group in developing effective programs that directly affect the design and programming of the jail facility (as well as potential uses of the existing jail facility in downtown Hillsborough), pending final Board approval of the work group's charge. Accepted market costs for jail facility programming typically amount to .05% of the construction cost of the project, which is estimated to be $125,000 for a $25 million projects. The combined proposed fee of$51,065 for Solutions in Local Government in supporting project programming and jail alternative evaluations is less than half of the market expectation for jail facility programming. Commissioner Pelissier noted that the work group was unanimous in its decision regarding the additions to the scope of work. She said, in terms of looking at needed capacity, the role of federal government will be examined, since many inmates in jail are federal inmates. She said there is a possibility that the federal government will pay some toward the construction of a new facility, as has been done in the past with renovations. Commissioner Gordon asked if someone will be filling in the blanks in the service agreement contained in attachment 4 — page 11. Jeff Thomson said this is part of the County attorney's template. John Roberts said the type of project refers to the description that comes after the colon in the document. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map in attachment a-1. He asked if the red line that seems to encompass the whole side of screen is one large parcel. Jeff Thompson said the large red boundary is the state property, which is the entire parcel, including the Orange Correctional Facility. He said the 6.8 acre parcel is the subject of the 50 year land lease. He said the blue buffer is the NC DOT buffer, and the red buffer is the Town of Hillsborough's UDO buffer. Chair Jacobs said at some point the Board will discuss whether to do this in pods or phases. He noted that this is being discussed as a $30 million project, but it is not $30 million if it is done in phases and pods. Michael Talbert said that is correct, and the consultant will be bringing forward these various options. Chair Jacobs said this number is intimidating, and it is good to put it into context when discussing it. Commissioner Rich asked if public transportation has been discussed as a means for visitors to get to the jail. She asked if buses will service this area. Jeff Thompson said there have been preliminary discussions about public transit, but the state has restrictions on what is allowed on the property. Commissioner Rich said she would like this explored further. Chair Jacobs said the Board has not had that discussion yet, but is consistent with other issues that have been dealt with in and around Hillsborough. He noted that this includes the Orange Correctional facility, so there is a larger prison population that could be served. Commissioner Rich said she would like to add Veteran's Court to the programs for discussion. She said this was discussed at the NACO meeting in Washington D.C. last year. She said this is a program to provide alternatives to veterans to avoid having them end up in jail or homeless. She said this program is similar to drug court. Commissioner Pelissier asked if this is specifically for veterans that are homeless. Commissioner Rich said no; this is for veterans in general. Cheryl Young pointed out that the contract only identifies current Orange County programs, but there are provisions that allow the addition of other programs for evaluation. She said Veteran's Court can be identified as one of these programs. Commissioner Rich said the program statement says "not limited to", and this is why she mentioned the addition. Commissioner Dorosin asked if what is drawn on the map actually exists, or if it is based on anything. Jeff Thompson said this drawing was based on an initial site assessment to determine if the property could support the facility. He said this was designed as a boundary for site lines, fence lines, and distances from the roads and the correctional facility. He said it is a general footprint. Commissioner Dorosin asked about the significance of the blue area with lines. Jeff Thompson said this is a safety area between the fence line and the building. He said this area was mandated by the state. Commissioner Rich said the section she was referring to is on page 9. She said the statement says "including, but not limited to the following programs." Chair Jacobs said there is no reason not to add the Veteran's Court. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to include a reference to the Veterans Court; and to approve a professional services agreement with Solutions for Local Government in the amount of$24,665 to consult with the County regarding jail alternatives; and approve a professional services agreement with Solutions for Local Government in the amount of$26,400 to consult with the County regarding jail facility programming, design guideline development, integration of potential jail alternative programs, and architectural design selection process development. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Rural Curbside Recycling Options The Board considered reviewing funding options for Rural Curbside Recycling in Orange County and providing direction to staff. Michael Talbert said the purpose of tonight is to consider all funding options for rural curbside service. He said Orange County is number one in the state in waste reduction, and the County is working toward the 61 percent goal. He said this will not be an easy or popular decision, and there are people passionate about this issue on both sides. He said all of this is caused by the Lanvelle court decision in Cabarrus County, which states that the County cannot levy a rural curbside fee without statutory authority. He said this fee was levied in the past by a 3R program that went away last year, and the program has been funded by reserves since that time. He said the program still serves 13,700 customers, and he referred to a map of the parcels with potential to be served. Michael Talbert said there are two options before the Board this evening, and the first is solid waste disposal service district, as outlined on page 6 of the abstract. He said the district would have to be outlined, and a statement would have to be compiled outlining how services will be provided to meet the needs, the plan for services, and what tax would be needed to serve the district. He said public hearings would need to be held, and letters would need to be mailed to all 13,700 current participants. Michael Talbert said the second option would be to use the Rural Curbside Subscription service, beginning with the same 13,700 customers and treating the other parcels as new customers. He said the non-profits would continue to be served, though they would not be taxed in a tax district. Michael Talbert said the estimated cost for providing the service under either option would be roughly $630,000 for every other week collection, and it would include new roll carts and new trucks. He said the estimated annual fee would be $58, based on the current 13,700 customers. He said it is expected that 20 percent of those customers would be lost if a subscription service was offered. He said the subscription service recommends that only half of the charge be billed in the first year. He said this would mean billing $29 for potentially 11,000 households, to bring in a little over $300,000. He said the other $300,000 would be funded out of the general fund for the first year. He said the reason for this is because the new trucks and roll carts will not be in service until after October 30tH Michael Talbert said the service would allow existing customers to keep their current bins. He said this is helpful to people with long driveways, who might find the larger bins to be too cumbersome. He noted that the cost is $20 more per year due to the new trucks and roll carts, which will cost $1.3 million. He said the receivable recyclables will increase, and efficiency will be gained with these new carts. He said he lives in rural Orange County, and he currently pays $60 per quarter to have his solid waste picked up in a similar container. He said this means the cost will be a quarter of the cost to do solid waste. Michael Talbert said there is a third option to fund all of this from the general fund, and all of the residents from the three towns would pay their fair share of rural curbside. He does not think this is fair or equitable. Michael Talbert said the recommendation is to move forward with the plan of rural curbside subscription service. He said, if approved, staff would provide letters to current customers outlining the service and the first year billing amount of$29. He said the letter would also offer the option for residents to keep their existing carts and would provide 30-45 days for customers to opt out of the service. He said this would give staff a good idea of their customer base by the end of May. He said this service would be an annual bill attached to the property tax bill. He said new roll carts would be in service no later than January 1 of 2015, regardless of which option is chosen. Michael Talbert said the subscription service would be evaluated at this time next year, and there would be a good knowledge of the customer base. He said a report would be given to the Board and fees would be re-adjusted at this time. He said if the Board was dissatisfied with the subscription service at this point, a service district and tax district could be established. Commissioner Pelissier referred to the option to subscribe. She asked why the charge is only half, and why the full estimated fee cannot be charged for the whole year. She said this would give an idea of how many people would opt out before the roll carts are purchased. Michael Talbert said staff will purchase needed roll carts in increments as information is gathered. He said the lead time is shorter for the carts than for the trucks. He said the reason for the half year is the knowledge that the lead time on the new trucks means that the trucks will not actually be used until at least October and potentially later. Commissioner Pelissier said a fee could be charged for the entire year. Michael Talbert said yes. Commissioner Dorosin asked for an explanation of how the subscription fee is different from the Lanvelle case fee. John Roberts said the Lanvelle case did not deal with recycling, and it was a fee that the County did not have authorization from the legislature to impose. He said that fee was levied on developers, and the courts said the County did not have the authority to impose the fee; therefore it must be paid back. He said the similarity comes down to the city and county statutes on solid waste. He said Counties have the authority to operate solid waste services, and to charge a fee for those services. He said cities have the authority to operate solid waste services and mandate that residents subscribe. He said Counties don't have authority to mandate the subscription. He said the option for County residents to return the cart and not be charged a fee, complies with the requirement that there not be a mandate. Commissioner Gordon referred to page 3, #5, regarding the pursuit of new customers in rural Orange County. She asked where this would be done. Michael Talbert said the County has routes that pick up on the blue tracks now. He said the adjacent properties that make the most sense would be the areas in yellow. He said the service would be marketed to all the areas in yellow. He said there are some new developments that would enable the County to go outside of the current district to establish new routes for newer developments. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the understanding with the towns regarding the areas outside of the towns. She asked if the County is expected to have a district or subscription outside of the municipal jurisdictions. Michael Talbert said he does not know the Town's expectation, but if an area lies outside of the Town's borders, it is the County's responsibility. Commissioner Rich said the assumption is that there will be a 20 percent drop off in service. She asked where this number came from. Michael Talbert said he worked with Gayle Wilson in solid waste. He said there has been a drop off in every program across the nation that has gone from a free program to a subscription service. He said this is a best estimate, and it is not etched in stone. Commissioner Rich asked what would happen if this number is a lot higher. She asked if this would mean the $58 fee would get higher. Michael Talbert said if this happens the cost could potentially go higher the next year. He said opt outs could change the routes, the direction of the routes and the way the collections are done. However, he said he has heard that recycling is important in Orange County, and staff wanted to continue the programs and find a way to pay for it. Commissioner Rich said she agrees that Orange County is passionate about recycling, but she is concerned that the subscription service may not get the buy in that the County is hoping for. She is not confident that the subscription is the way to go. Michael Talbert said if the Board wants to move forward with the district instead, this can still be done by July 1. Commissioner McKee asked if the 20 percent drop accounts for people who will later opt back in, and the potential new customers. Michael Talbert said the 20 percent is based on national averages of what a plan ends up being a year after moving to a subscription service, and it does not account for new customers. Commissioner Price asked if the subscription service will be available to all of the residents in the County, even beyond the current map. Michael Talbert said this service will initially be available to the existing customer base and the existing district. He said it will be possible to branch out where the density makes it possible. Commissioner Price questioned whether it would be cost effective without the density. She asked how you would tell someone they cannot participate. Michael Talbert said it may not be possible to serve everyone, especially residents who live in an outlying rural area that is not densely populated. Commissioner McKee said the current route comes within two miles of his home. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tom O'Dywer said if the Board of County Commissioners agrees that recycling is an essential thing, he does not see how a subscription service can be logical to the community. He said he has heard there is a drop of 40 percent in participants with subscription services. He said it is a gamble to maintain this and have it be cost effective. He feels this could undermine the County's relationships with the Towns, since all of the Town residents have mandatory recycling, and the County would not. He said he knows many people who would put their recycling in a garbage bag and throw it away to save $20. He encouraged the Board to go with a tax district. Terri Buckner lives in the rural curbside area of Heritage Hills. She encouraged the Board to go with the service district. She noted that there are many renters in southern Orange County, and those people cannot pay this fee by their tax bill, thus the fee would go to the homeowner. She feels this will impact the participation rate. She said she has fluctuated between using the curbside recycling and taking it to the convenience center. She said she does better with the curbside. She feels that the subscription service will take out more than 20 percent and will reduce the progress toward achieving the goal. She said she sees a lot of yellow around the blue on the map, and she wondered if including some of this area in the mandatory service district might bring down the $58 fee. Don O'Leary said he lives in the rural area of Orange County. He said he already has to go to the dump, and he takes his recycling when he goes. He said there is no need to have a recycling truck come by his residence. He said he would personally opt out if given the option. He feels it is progress to allow folks to opt out. The following written submissions were also received for public comment: From: Jan Sassaman Phone Number: 919-933-1609 Message: Dear County Commissioners: Unfortunately, I cannot be at your meeting this evening, but would like you all to hear (or read) what I would say about Action Agenda Item 7b a?" Rural Curbside Recycling were I able to be there. I am somewhat dismayed that such a proposal has come before you. After months of discussions among elected officials and managers of the three towns and the county, all parties seemed to have come together and the towns, especially Chapel Hill, have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of their residents for them to work with the county and to have the county take the lead in recycling. To that end, it is my understanding that the towns will collect a mandatory fee from residents and that the proceeds of that fee will be used by the county for curbside recycling within the individual towns. It was also my understanding (based on discussions at county, town, and joint meetings of elected officials) that the county would collect funds for rural curbside recycling by means of a district tax structure within those areas of the county where recycling would be collected at the curb. As I read it, the proposal before you would establish a Rural Curbside Recycling Subscription Service to be operated by the county and necessitating up front purchase of two new recycling vehicles and up to 11,000 roll carts, as well as paying for the first six months of service to those rural customers with $315 K from general funds. Based on this understanding, I have several questions that I hope you will ask of staff and for which you will require detailed and satisfactory response before approving considering a subscription-based rural curbside recycling program. 1. The action item abstract is based on an expectation that only 20% of the existing 13,700 households currently receiving curbside collection will opt out of the service, thus necessitating purchase of 11,000 carts. Currently, with a service not covered by a fee and essentially paid up front, we have significantly less than 80% participation. I understand on the order of 60% participation. Given the high level of educational outreach to date, it is unreasonable to expect that significantly more households will now elect to pay for a service that at present they do not use, despite the fact that it is already paid for. Lack of an adequate subscriber base will likely require a significant increase in the annual cost of the program per subscriber, resulting in additional erosion of the subscriber base and potentially leading to an upward spiral of costs and a downward spiral of the program. Alternatively, it may result in the need for additional subsidies from the general! fund. Thus success of this program would depend upon enrolling 80% of the eligible population in the program. Such a key factor, and evidence that 80% participation is not assured, warrants additional evidence and assurance from staff that education and outreach would increase participation rates. 2. If this program is approved as outlined in Action Agenda Item 7b, there are a number of potential pitfalls. As outlined, the county would purchase 2 trucks, and more importantly, up to 11,000 roll carts would be purchased to be placed in service no later than January 1, 2015. If significantly less than 11,000 customers elect to continue service, we can have a significant sunk cost of those carts not needed. As the individuals in the customer base change as people move, decline service, etc., how will county staff keep track of who has paid for the service and who does not get service, as well as who should have the carts and where are they. Carts are not cheap disposable items. These and other key operational issues should be addressed before approving Action Agenda Item 7b. 3. Lastly, there is the issue of perception associated with both a voluntary service in the county and the diversion of general funds to pay for the first 6 months of the program. The towns have agreed to participate with the county on curbside recycling, but there has been at least an implied assumption that the town and rural programs would be equivalent (mandatory, fee-based in the towns and tax district-based in the county). With approval of Action Agenda Item 7b, the playing field may well be changed, if not in fact, at least in perception. I urge you to assure yourselves of acceptance of such a program on the part of your equivalent town elected officials before approval. The recycling efforts in Orange County do not need another bump in the road. Thank you for your consideration. I again apologize for not being able to be there this evening. Jan Sassaman 201 Bolinwood Dr. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Dear Commissioners: Thank you for taking the time to carefully examine funding options for rural curbside recycling. We fully support the manager's recommendation for a voluntary fee for users of the service (called a "subscription fee"). We would appreciate your help in asking staff to clarify: (1) whether the rural service will be weekly or bi-weekly; (2) what constitutes "written notification" to opt-out - specifically whether email notification will be accepted; and (3) what happens if a household decides to opt-out after the initial 45 day opt-out period. The option to charge a fee subsidized by general fund revenues seems fair and easy to understand. It is consistent with the funding approach that will be used for the town's recycling and for the convenience centers. We hope that you will ask staff to disclose the amount of the general fund subsidy in their annual budget. That would improve fiscal control and transparency. Questions have been raised about the suitability of roll carts for rural homes with long private roads and driveways. The county could increase participation if customers were given the option to choose roll carts or keep their orange bins. Either way, you may want to delay investing in new trucks and roll carts until you have a better idea about participation rates. Please adopt the manager's recommendation to provide services under a voluntary subscription fee that allows households to opt out. Whether they choose to use curbside recycling or not, we are confident that rural households will continue to recycle aggressively. Thank you for considering our view. Please include this letter in the public record. Sincerely, Tony Blake, White Cross Community Alex Castro Jr, White Cross Community Katherine Cheek, Schley Community Laura Duncan, Mebane Community Sam Gharbo, Efland Community Steve Graf, Cedar Grove Community Bonnie Hauser, Orange County Voice Carroll Hawkins, Cedar Grove Community Tommy Holmes, Orange Grove Community Ed Johnson, Buckhorn Community Kathy Kaufman and Mike Narotsky, Lucy Lane Community Dave Laudicina, Meadowview Community Virginia Leslie, Collins Creek Community Mac McDade, Cedar Grove Community Joann Mitchell, Efland Habitat Community Robert Nutter, Maple View Farm Paul Rockwell, Orange Grove Community Lori Schweickert, Teer Road Community Llane Salgado, Transition Carrboro-Chapel Hill Lorretta Smith, Efland Community Maria Tadd, Ferguson Community Susan Walser, Western Park Community Chris Weaver, Caldwell Community Dick and Norma White, Schley Community Randall Williams, Mount Mitchell/Apple Mill Community Chair Jacobs said he feels that the County's municipal partners have the expectation that Orange County will not undermine the viability of the recycling program. Commissioner McKee thanked the manager for including the option for residents to continue use of the current recycling bins. He also thanked him for the inclusion of the evaluation at the beginning of 2015, in the event that the Board goes with the manager's recommendation. He feels this evaluation would give the Board the option to re-direct and go with the tax district. He said the opt-out was a critical issue for him; and he is convinced that some people will opt out, but he does not believe it will be 20 percent. He feels that when new customers are figured in, the loss will be less than 20 percent. He said he has spoken with people who have curbside recycling in his area and these residents like it and don't want to lose it. He does not believe these people will opt out. He is aware of several communities that also want to opt in as a viable route. Commissioner McKee said he likes this option and the above mentioned provisions. He does not know how to address the possible disparity questions from the town. He said the only argument he could make against the tax district is that some properties will be paying for a service they cannot get. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the 20 percent estimate is based only on the parcels already in the service area. Michael Talbert said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a sense of how many of these residents were already not participating in the service. Michael Talbert said this information can be gotten from the RFID chips on the newer containers. He said, from the visual perspective of the drivers, about 60-65 percent set out recycling containers on any given 2 week schedule. He said this may mean that people only use the service once a month or it may mean that only 65 percent are using it, though he does not think this is the case. Commissioner Dorosin said the premise of the "opt out" option is that people, who may recycle when it is part of their taxes, won't participate if it is a separate bill. He is trying to understand this. He said this seems odd, since he feels people recycle because they are philosophically committed to it, or they are not. He does not feel that he has enough information about the impacts of any of these options. Commissioner Rich said she feels the same way about not having enough information to make a decision. She said the raising of the fee may cause people to opt out, and the idea of the subscription service does not sit well with her. She feels the County should have a program that everyone could use, and she is not in favor of this. Commissioner Gordon said she is concerned about the subscription service. She said one concern is that the best case scenario would be that 20% would opt out. She said this means that the best estimates are that the participation rates will be lower than they are now. She questioned what the expectations of the municipalities would be. She noted that the municipalities have all residents participating, and she feels that the County needs to touch base with the Town officials about this. Commissioner Gordon said she understands the concern regarding the fact that vacant properties will have to pay the fee. She said she would like to see a public hearing on the service district. She said this would allow comments and would give time to provide more information on the subscription service. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board is between a rock and a hard place. She said the County should have the right to levy a fee. She feels there are a lot of uncertainties, and some of this information simply isn't out there. She said a decision simply has to be made how to proceed, and she would like to mirror the Towns as much as possible. She said taxes are always paid for services that not everyone uses. She said land owners don't use most of the services they pay for, but there are things that just have to be accepted. She wants to see the community maintain its commitment to recycling. She thinks the best option is to do a tax district. She said a public hearing needs to be held sooner rather than later. Commissioner Price said she concurs with the previous comments, and her main concern is the increase of the fee. Michael Talbert said the fee will go up no matter what option is chosen. Commissioner Dorosin echoed Commissioner Pelissier's point. He thinks it is wrong to think that one option is going to yield greater participation. He does think if this service is important then the way to pay for it is through taxes. He would support a hearing on the service district, and then the Board can take it from there. Commissioner McKee said the main point is the commitment to recycling, and he is most comfortable with providing an option to do this for a fee rather than an additional tax. The cost will go up $20 a year, and that is not that much. Chair Jacobs said he came to this meeting without a starting inclination, wanting to hear what his peers had to say. He said he is inclined to stand by the principle of minimizing their adverse impact on the environment. He said the way to do that is to provide the residents a service that will make it easy for them to do the right thing. He is more inclined to talk about having a district. He said there needs to be a commitment to be more aggressive to providing a service to those who pay for it. He said if the County is going to charge someone for a service, then that resident should have the opportunity to use it. He said all of the yellow area should be served if it is within the tax district, and if this has to be serviced by the general fund then this will be done. Michael Talbert said part of the process of establishing a service district is to come back to the Board with a plan to serve everyone in yellow within a reasonable period of time. Chair Jacobs said he is saying that this should be presented up front. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is any rough estimate for the amount of the tax for a tax district. Michael Talbert said the estimated property value within the district is $4.2 billion. He said if the cost remains in the $600,000 range that would mean a tax rate of about 1.5 cents. He said expansion to serve more areas may require additional trucks and crews, which would mean more expense. Chair Jacobs said it would be good to have a more detailed analysis of what will be asked of people before the public hearing. He said he would like to see the cost per parcel, per hundred dollars. Michael Talbert said this is the next logical step, and if this is the pleasure of the Board, it could be brought forward in January. Commissioner Rich asked about a clustered area in southern Chapel Hill that is not in the blue. She asked for clarification on why this would not be serviced when the areas around it are serviced. Michael Talbert said this district was defined about a year ago, and it was based on existing routes. He said this district was just filled in with parcels for this map. He said this may change if a district plan is developed. Chair Jacobs said it sounds as if the majority board wants option 1, on page two, which is to create a solid waste service district. He asked for clarifications on the ramifications of this. Michael Talbert said this starts on page 6, and is from the October 8th abstract. He reviewed the abstract information below: There is a process to create a Solid Waste Tax Service District that is identical to the process used for the creation of Fire Service Districts completed in the spring of 2013. Schedule and Publish a Notice of Public Hearing: Prior to the Public Hearing, the County must prepare a Report on the district. A copy of the report must be kept in the Clerk's office. The report must contain the following: 1. A map of the proposed district, showing its proposed boundaries; 2. A statement showing that the proposed district meets the standards set out in subsection (a); and 3. A plan for providing one or more of the services listed in G.S. 153A-301 to the district. The Report should also include: 1. The resident or seasonal population and population density of the proposed district. 2. The appraised value of property subject to taxation in the proposed district. 3. The present tax rates of the county and any cities or special districts in which the district or any portion thereof is located. 4. The ability of the proposed district to sustain the additional taxes necessary to provide the services planned for the district. 5. If it is proposed to furnish water, sewer, or solid waste collection services in the district, the probable net revenues of the projects to be financed and the extent to which the services will be self-supporting. 6. Any other matters that the commissioners believe to have a bearing on whether the district should be established. Notice of Public Hearing must be mailed (first class prepaid is fine), at least 4 weeks prior to the date of the public hearing, to the "owners as shown by the county tax records as of the preceding January 1 (and at the address shown thereon) of all property located within the proposed district." Commissioner McKee asked if this is doable with the current staff. Michael Talbert said staff may need extra help to get out 13,000 letters, which would have to go out 4 weeks prior to a public hearing. He said if the Board would be willing to set a late March or early April public hearing date, this would give staff adequate time to put together the details of a district. Commissioner Gordon asked if the idea was to come back with plan in January. Michael Talbert said yes, and the idea was that the public hearing dates would be set at that time. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to direct staff to come back with a plan on January 23 d for public hearings, with the intent to establish a solid waste district by July 1, 2014. Commissioner Dorosin said he can support he motion for the hearing, but this does not mean he will support the district. He said the argument about the value of recycling is counter- balanced by the value of trying to maintain affordability in the County. He said discussion about a 1.6 cent tax on the rural areas of the County is troubling, especially when it does not guarantee more participation than the other option. He is not comfortable with the wording regarding intent. Commissioner McKee said he will not support this motion, because he feels the Board is walking past a viable option with the subscription service. He said this provides a stop gap option with the ability to see if it will work. He questioned if it is viable to tax when there is no guarantee that it will mean more participation. He said residents are committed to recycling, and he does not hear residents in the rural part of the County making arguments against it. He does not believe there will be a 20 percent drop. Commissioner Price said she can support the motion, but she does have a problem with the word "intent." Commissioner Pelissier said she could withdraw the word "intent", but she feels there does need to be some level of intent. Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to vote on her original motion first and see where things stand. Commissioner Gordon questioned the meaning of the word intent. Chair Jacobs said there is no point in having a public hearing if there is no willingness to change the premise. Commissioner Gordon said she does not think intent means a commitment. Michael Talbert said the commitment will come after the public hearing and before the budget is adopted. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1(Commissioner McKee) c. Recommended Uses of General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 The Board considered a recommendation for the use of the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance in excess of the BOCC's fund balance policy. Clarence Grier read the following information from the abstract: On April 5, 2011, the BOCC adopted a fund balance policy that states: The County will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance in the General Fund of 17% percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures each fiscal year. The amount of unassigned fund balance maintained during each fiscal year should not fall below 8% percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures, as recommended by the North Carolina Local Government Commission. Clarence Grier said the 17 percent for unassigned balance is based on a recommendation by the Government Finance Officers Association. He said this equals just over two months of expenditures for the fiscal year. He reviewed the following information from the abstract: As of June 30, 2013, the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance totaled $41.8 million (Attachment 2). Of this amount, $5.2 million was appropriated prior to the end of the fiscal year to balance the FY 2013 —2014 General Fund Operating Budget. After the appropriations of the General Fund's fund balance available for appropriation, the General Fund unassigned fund balance as of June 30, 2013 was $36.6 million, which represents 20.17% of the General Fund expenditures as of June 30, 2013. This represents approximately a 125% increase in the General Fund unassigned fund balance since June 30, 2009. Additionally this represents unassigned fund balance in excess of the fund balance policy of$5.7 million. Clarence Grier said that staff recommends that the BOCC consider the following suggested uses: General Fund Balance Available for Appropriation As of December 10, 2013 Totals Fund Balance Available for Appropriation (A), June 30, 2013 $ 41,798,172 Fund Balance, Assigned $ 5,190,118 Total Assigned Fund Balance (B) $ 5,190,118 Fund Balance Unassigned (A less B), June 30, 2013 $ 36,608,054 General Fund Expenditures for the year ended June 30, 2013 $181,528,386 General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 As a Percentage of General Fund Expenditures 20.17% BOCC Fund Balance Policy - 17 % 17.00% General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance as of June 30, 2013 In excess of the Board's policy $ 5,748,228 Less: Sportsplex Land Purchase (382,000) Less: OPEB Funding (3,000,000) Less: CY Appropriation of Fund Balance (225,53% Additional Unassigned Fund Balance Available for Appropriation As of November 30, 2013 $ 2,140,689 Suggested Current Year uses of the Additional Fund Balance Available to avoid financing cost: County Rural Recycling (1/2 Year Funding for FY 2014-15) (315,000) Additional Amounts Available for Appropriation for Current Fiscal Year or FY 2014 -15 $1.825,689 * 17% Fund Balance totals...............................................................$30,859,826 Clarence Grier said the $3 million into the Other Post Employee Benefits (OPEB) will fully fund the annual required pay as you go contribution. He said he would recommend that the $315,000 for the recycling program be held for start up. He reviewed the fund balance changes outlined in attachment 3, and said the fund balance has increased by 65 percent since 2008, and 125 percent since 2009. Michael Talbert referred to attachment 2 and noted the appropriated fund balance of $5,190,000 from last year. He said this same amount will need to be appropriated next year in order to remain even. He said it is wise and prudent to leave $1.8 million available moving forward, especially as the Board is concerned about not having a tax increase until the 2015- 16 bond referendum. He said this would allow the ability to do one more year's budget with reasonable revenue growth, without a property tax increase. He referred to page 55 of the audit that the Board received tonight. He said that page is dedicated OPEB. He noted the total accrued liability of$65 million and said the addition of the recommended $3 million will get the County to almost a 10 percent funding level of the $65 million. He said this item will no longer be in the notes of the 2015-16 financial statement, but it will be on the financial statement. He said there needs to be a plan of how to fund it in order for the bond rating agencies to look favorably on it. Chair Jacobs asked for clarification that the manager's recommendation is to approve the suggested uses of the fund balance. He asked how specific the Board needs to be. Michael Talbert said it should be a general statement, and this will be included in the budget amendment in January. Chair Jacobs asked if the Board should entertain a conversation about possible uses now. Michael Talbert said the intent was to talk about solid waste. Commissioner Gordon said she wants to make sure she understands what is included in the approval for tonight. She asked if this includes the $382,000. Clarence Grier said the $382,000 has already been approved, and tonight's approval will be for just the OPEB $3 million. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the manager's recommendation is to have the $1.8 million stay as is. Michael Talbert said yes. He said that flexibility will be needed to fund the CIP and the operating cost for next year. Commissioner Dorosin said he would be in favor of moving some of this to the Social Justice fund. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the suggested use of the fund balance for OPEB. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs noted that if the Board does not raise taxes for 2014-15, it would be the 6th year that the Board has not raised taxes. He said it might be argued that, subject to uncontrolled circumstance, a fairly stable system of financial governance has been achieved. He said this is a good improvement. Commissioner Dorosin said the school district tax has been raised, so it is not accurate to say taxes have not been raised. Chair Jacobs said the general property tax has not been raised. a. Whitted Permanent Meeting Room Technology Elements Update The Board continued review of the visual aid technology elements related to the dais and floor meeting video content viewing identified by the Board; receive demonstrations of the proposed podium mounted visual display and a dais mounted display; and authorize the Manager to proceed with the podium mounted display and the study of visual display technologies that integrate into devices provided to the Board. Jeff Thompson said the Board specifically wanted to be able to see clearly from the dais. He said the dais is about 7 inches off the floor, and the video monitor is 12 feet away from the center of the dais. He said the monitor is 60 inches and has a 173 degree wide viewing angle. Jeff Thompson referred to the demonstration of a network streaming system that will follow the podium's content. He said this will allow the podium content to be at the Commissioner's places. Jeff Thompson said the podium will be handicap accessible, and it will be on casters so it can be moved around the room. Commissioner Price asked why the current podium is not closer. Jeff Thompson said this has to do with the current position of the camera and lighting. Commissioner Gordon said she can see the screen quite well as it is. She asked about the content streaming and whether this would be received on a specific type of device. Jeff Thompson said staff will be testing this on several devices. He said the technology can accommodate up to 50 users in the room. Commissioner Gordon said it seems the podium display works for people who don't have a device, but others can use individual devices. She said this gives flexibility to have varying numbers of people seated at the dais. Jeff Thompson said the dais will accommodate up to 11 people. Commissioner Rich said she does like looking at the presenter and podium, and she likes being able to bring it up on the computer. Chair Jacobs said having up to 50 people able to access the feed may help reduce the necessary number of overhead monitors. Chair Jacobs asked if there is a standard distance of the podium from dais. David Taylor said the distance is similar to distance at Town of Chapel Hill and the Town Council chambers. He said the podium is on casters, which makes it flexible. Jeff Thompson said when staff did the tours years ago, many places had intimate closeness - as little as 8 feet. He said this can be moved back to suit the Board's pleasure. Chair Jacobs said he would be interested to see different permutations of the closeness of the podium to dais. Commissioner McKee asked if it is possible to have more than one junction box. David Taylor said the plan is to have three floor boxes for wiring. He said adding more floor outlets would cause more construction in the health department, and these are also expensive. Commissioner Gordon asked why one of these boxes will be located in the conference room. David Taylor said this will allow a network in the conference room, and the ability to plug in laptops and project onto a flat screen. Jeff Thompson said this makes that room much more flexible from a technology standpoint. David Taylor said this could be helpful for closed session presentations. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to authorize the Manager to proceed with the podium mounted display and the study of visual display technologies that integrate into devices provided to the Board. Commissioner Gordon said she would like some sort of mockup of the room before the final decisions are made. Jeff Thompson said this is part of the plan. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin) Commissioner Dorosin said four of the Commissioners use laptops, and he thinks the big screen facing the dais is unnecessary and is not a good use of funds. He said the podium is too close and should be further back. Chair Jacobs said the big screen could be removed or turned off if it was found to not be useful. He agreed with the idea of seeing a mockup of the room. 8. Reports a. Emergency Shelter Future Needs Report The Board received a report from the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness regarding the future provision of emergency homeless shelter services in the County. Commissioner Pelissier said last year Commissioner Rich asked to look at the needs for an emergency shelter, and this was referred to the Partnership to End Homelessness. She apologized that it has taken longer than expected to respond. She said the request was made when the partnership was in the middle of revising its plan, and this process could not be stopped. She said there are also a lot of changes happening at the federal level. She said, in reality, the partnership has to look at all of the housing needs of all the homeless. She said the IFC shelter has evolved from an emergency shelter to transitional housing. Commissioner Pelissier said an evaluation sub-committee and a housing sub- committee worked on this. She said the question of assessing housing needs is not just about emergency shelter. She said it involves four types of housing - emergency housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and rapid re-housing. She reviewed the following section of the report Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness Homeless Housing Needs Assessment Definitions of homeless housing types: • Emergency Shelter: short-term shelter, often up to thirty (30) or sixty (60) days. • Transitional Housing: long-term shelter providing increased case management and services, often up to two (2) years. • Permanent Supportive Housing: rental housing for people who are physically and/or mentally disabled and homeless and not capable of living independently; supportive services are provided and tailored to individual needs. • Rapid Re-Housing (RRH): homeless people are thoroughly assessed and housed in subsidized and non-subsidized apartments and receive services to help them become self- reliant; program enrollment can be three (3) months to two (2) years. NOTE: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data demonstrates that RRH programs are highly successful and cost effective for ending homelessness and has determined it to be a best practice. Commissioner Pelissier reviewed the findings and recommendations from the report, as listed below: Emergency Shelter (ES) • no beds are needed for families (none currently exist - all IFC ES beds are for individuals) • there is a surplus of 57 beds for individuals (who need TH, RRH or PSH) Transitional Housing (TH)/Rapid Re-Housing (RRH) • there is a surplus of 20 beds for families (who need PSH) • 38 additional beds are needed for individuals (who are currently on the streets or in ES) Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) • 10 additional beds are needed for families (who are currently in ES or TH) • 47 additional beds are needed for individuals (who are currently on the streets, in ES or in TH) The OCPEH will annually conduct its Unmet Need Calculation and use these findings to regularly update the goals and strategies of its Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. Recommendations Based on Orange County's Unmet Need Calculation, HEARTH Act goals and evidence-based practices the OCPEH recommends: 1. Our community should increase funding for Rapid Re-Housing (administered by the Department of Social Services) and Permanent Supportive Housing (administered by Cardinal Innovations and the Center for Excellence in Community Mental Health) programs, both of which are evidence-based practices for helping people ultimately resolve their homelessness. 2. At present there is no need to invest in Emergency Shelter capacity. Commissioner Pelissier said, per HUD requirements, the County needs to monitor this on a yearly basis. She said the Commissioners will be receiving a full report about the change in the plan, which integrates the housing with the services. She said Jamie Rohe will be out of the Country, and this will delay this a bit. She said it is challenging to talk about some of this without the context of the federal changes, best practices and the plan to end homelessness. She said the summary of the changes centers on solving the problem of homelessness, and ending it, rather than managing it. Jamie Rohe said the evolution of the field of homelessness has really shifted from the immediate emergency response, to longer term shelter, to transitional housing. She said it has now evolved to permanent supportive housing, which is intended to stop the revolving door of people with disabilities coming in and out of shelters, and get them off the street. She said chronic homelessness is a tragic human condition, and it is very expensive for society. She said rapid re-housing is the newest model, and it is seen as a way to end homelessness as quickly as possible, while right sizing the assistance being received. Jamie Rohe said the homelessness housing situation is viewed as a system. She said there will always be a need for emergency shelter, but permanent supportive and rapid re- housing are what is recommended to actually end homelessness. Commissioner Pelissier said the jail alternatives workgroup discussed the issue of permanent supportive housing today. She said this was a roadblock to all of the individuals cycling in and out of the jails. Commissioner Price asked if work is being done with employment agencies to help people get out on their own and be able to stay in a home. Jamie Rohe said income and housing are essential to ending homelessness. She said, for people who are able to work, one of the primary initiatives of the partnership is the job partners program. She said this is administered by the Community Empowerment Fund. She said this group is also working with Job Link and the Skills Development Center, as well as other partners in the community. She said the partnership is recommending the prioritization of investing in permanent supportive housing and rapid re-housing, and she would like to have a richer dialogue with the Board and elected officials to explain why. She said there is not enough affordable rental housing, and this is a huge problem. Commissioner Rich asked if the Board could continue this discussion in more detail at a later date. She would like to know where these homeless people are staying if they are not staying at the shelters. She said this is a good start, but the conversation needs to be continued. She said she is not yet requesting another shelter, though she has not crossed that off either. She said it is important that the information be shared, so decisions can be made. She said the IFC does not want to be an emergency shelter anymore. She would like to keep the conversation open so that decisions can be made. She does not want this to be put on a shelf. Commissioner Pelissier suggested the Board should have a work session to look at the big picture and the revised plan when Jamie Rohe returns. Commissioner Price requested some statistics for this work session on who is using the facilities. Jamie Rohe said she would encourage the County to have the dialogue with all of the local governments. She would like to see coordination of efforts for affordable housing. Chair Jacobs said this was discussed at the Assembly of Governments, and there has been further discussion with the manager regarding the creation of this kind of partnership. He said if the Board decides to consider an affordable housing bond, there will need to be coordination of the needs and an understanding of who is doing what. PUBLIC COMMENT: Mark Peters said he and his family have donated significant time and money to fight homelessness in the Triangle and other parts of the Country. He said it is good to see the rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing work addressing the dismantling of alternatives for the mental health system. He said he has looked at the report, and he would like to see a clear accounting of what is needed overall and what is available at specific facilities in the area. He said he would like these details to be included in the agenda materials. He asked where the men's emergency shelter beds will be provided. He is concerned that there is a hole here. He asked who will be providing the emergency beds when the shelter closes. He said read the last statement in the report, which stated there is no need to invest in emergency shelter capacity. He said this is not supported by the report, unless there is a men's shelter capacity in the County that he is not aware of. He said if the writer's intent is simply to advocate for funding other initiatives, which leaves the emergency shelter unfunded, then this should be plainly stated. His request is that the Commissioners need to plan for emergency shelter capacity and site it with fair share principles and appropriate public input. 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Agricultural Preservation Board. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint Noah Rannells to the Agricultural Preservation Board where he will be serving a first full term expiring 06/30/2016 as an at-large representative. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointment The Board considered making appointments to the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer this item back to the ASAB for recommendations. Commissioner Price said she was going to nominate people and she noted that there are letters from the board. Commissioner Dorosin said he is not satisfied with the letters from the ASAB. He said the letters illustrate his concern that the qualifications are arbitrary. He said it seems to be very subjective. He said there need to be some objective standards to these criteria. Commissioner Dorosin suggested a friendly amendment that all of these criteria be developed with objective standards. Commissioner McKee said, in a lot of cases, the Board has recommendations for the boards receiving appointments. He said there have been recommendations from this board in the past and he feels the ASAB staff has the ability to make recommendations of people who will fit the positions. He said there is no list, and he feels the Board should wait for this. Chair Jacobs asked if Commissioner McKee would accept the friendly amendment. Commissioner McKee declined the amendment and said this could be discussed at another time. Commissioner Price noted that one of the openings was an at-large position with no qualifications other than that the appointee is an Orange County citizen. She said she respects the recommendation of a committee, but it is the responsibility of the Board to have citizens involved in the government process. She said there is no valid reason not to appoint an at-large position. Chair Jacobs said the ASAB director had objections to the appointments made at the last meeting. Chair Jacobs said he expressed that these appointments are the responsibility of the Board and are under their purview. He said this led to an email tree that is included in the packet. VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Rich; Nays, 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Price) c. Chapel Hill / Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill / Orange County Visitors Bureau. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Mrs. Karen DeHart to the Chapel Hill / Orange County Visitors Bureau. She will be serving a second full term expiring 12/31/2016 as the NC High School Athletic Association representative in position 6. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Commission for the Environment—Appointments The Board considered making additional term appointments for existing commission members to the Commission for the Environment. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint to the Commission for the Environment Mr. Loren Hintz to a second full term expiring 12/31/2016 as a Biological Resources representative; and Dr. Jan Sassaman to a second full term expiring 12/31/2016 as an At-Large representative. VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Orange County Parks & Recreation Council —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint Mr. Robert Robinson to the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council. He will be serving a first partial term expiring 3/31/2014. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) Commissioner Pelissier- none Commissioner Price — none Commissioner Dorosin — none Commissioner McKee wished everyone a good holiday. Commissioner Gordon wished everyone a happy holiday. Commissioner Rich — none Chair Jacobs said that the County had received an email from NCACC asking for input about the 2014 NCACC Federal Legislative Agenda. He said the deadline is January 10'2014. He said the members of the legislative committee, Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner McKee, will need to meet with staff before the deadline and set up a mechanism or deadline for other Commissioners to send recommendations. He said staff can then bring forward information on what has been the legislative agenda in relation to federal goals. He said there is such a wide scope, and it needs to be narrowed down. Chair Jacobs said the County had received a request from the Town of Carrboro asking for a letter of support from Orange County in reference to a grant application for the ArtsCenter. He said the ArtsCenter and the Town of Carrboro making a joint application as partners to the NEA's Our Town creative placemaking program for a planning grant for a downtown Carrboro Arts & Creativity District. He said this is needed by January 6, 2014 for inclusion in the application. If the Board approves, which was done by consensus, he will write the letter and forward to the Town of Carrboro with copies to the BOCC. Chair Jacobs said the 16th annual agricultural summit will be held in late February 2014. He asked if the retreat planning committee could let the Board know about the agenda before it is finalized. Chair Jacobs requested the Board's permission to write a letter to the Southern Environmental Law Center thanking them for their work on behalf of the County. Commissioner McKee said their first emergency services director, Mr. Bobby Baker, passed away this week. He said Bobby Baker put the emergency services department together. 13. Information Items • December 2, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Memorandum on Town-County Collaboration on Protecting Hillsborough Archaeological Sites • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from December 2, 2013 Regular Board Meeting 14. Closed Session - NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:45:16 PM VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board