Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-31-2014 APPROVED 3/6/2014 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PLANNING RETREAT Solid Waste Administrative Offices January 31, 2014 8:30 a.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Board annual retreat on Friday, January 31, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. at the Solid Waste Administrative Offices in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (other staff will be identified below) Welcome/Continental Breakfast Facilitator (Rod Visser) — Introductions/Ground Rules Introductions were made. Rod Visser explained his role as facilitator: • Assist the commissioners in having the most effective discussion and outcomes possible from their retreat • Employ an acceptable set of ground rules to assist commissioners in having effective conversations • Be, and be perceived to be, substantively neutral • Bring process expertise to the table, NOT subject matter or management expertise • Help commissioners manage their time to accomplish their agenda to the maximum degree possible • Ask clarifying questions when it is helpful and appropriate to do so • Assist commissioners in making adjustments to their agenda, as needed • Assist Board and staff in developing mutual understanding about agreed upon next steps and follow up actions, if any • Act as timekeeper, and keep the board aware of it, but for each agenda topic, the board will decide how to spend its time and what direction they will provide to staff; He then reviewed the ground rules below, as developed by Roger Schwarz at the School of Government (this information was included in the agenda attachment "Memorandum - Proposed Ground Rules for January 31, 2014 Retreat". Core Values Underlying Ground Rules ➢ valid information ➢ free and informed choice ➢ internal commitment ➢ compassion Ground Rules for Effective Groups 1. Test assumptions and inferences. 2. Share all relevant information. 3. Use specific examples, and agree on what important words mean. 4. Explain your reasoning and intent. 5. Focus on interests, not positions. 6. Combine advocacy and inquiry. 7. Jointly design steps and ways to test disagreements. 8. Discuss "undiscussable" issues. 9. Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment needed The Board agreed to work under the ground rules today, including the intention to make decisions by consensus where possible, and by majority vote where necessary. Rod Visser indicated his intention to adhere to the ground rules as well, and asked Board members to indicate to him if they believe at any time that he is not doing so. Chair Jacobs expressed appreciation to Commissioners Gordon, Pelissier, and Rich, and to the Manager and staff, for their work in putting together the agenda for the retreat. Rod Visser gave background information on the process by which the retreat agenda was constructed by the planning committee, to provide context on how the retreat topics and objectives were developed. Commissioners agreed that the retreat agenda developed by the retreat planning committee, Manager, and staff was a reasonable starting point for the retreat. 1. Budget/Capital Investment Plan/Bond Referendum A. Budget Drivers/Revenue Estimates/Fund Balance Estimates (Clarence Grier— Presenter& Rod Visser) Clarence Grier gave the following update on the 2014-15 projected budget funding issues: Original budgeted revenue for the current fiscal year was $182.5 million. He sees that as a good starting point for the upcoming fiscal year. Anticipated adjustments to that base figure include: • $2.6 million in property tax revenues, based on projected growth of 1.5% • Sales tax revenue growth of$1.3 million, based on the economy recovering, which will bring the County up to what it collected last year • No major increases in licenses and permits, charges for services, miscellaneous revenue, intergovernmental revenue, or investment income • Plan to use excess fund balance above 17%, which will be about $5.7 million. This includes about $2.1 million in 2012-13 fund balance and about $3.5 million that will come from this current year's projected year end fund balance. This brings total expected adjustments to revenuesof just over $9.5 million. Estimated revenues for 2014-15 would be about $192.1 million. Expenditures start out at about $187.7 million. Anticipated major adjustments include: • Health insurance increases of about $350,000 • Adjustments in retirement contribution rate - originally thought it might go down .10% but there has been recent talk that it might go up 10%; will have to find that out later in the budget process • Full year funding for staggered addition of some employees during the current year - $638,000 for salaries and benefits • Keeping current compensation plan, allowing for 2% adjustment - $2 million • Adjustment for projected growth in both school systems (Chapel Hill Carrboro - 154; Orange County— 90); about 250 new students, based on current per pupil funding of$3,269, that equates to $817,000 With adjustment for school growth, new debt service for the Culbreth science wing and the auxiliary gym, and other items, education spending would be at 48.62% of the budget; considering everything like social workers and Sheriff's deputies, the total is about 49.6%. Preliminarily, total expected adjustments to expenditures would be $4.4 million on a total anticipated budget of$192.1 million, with no budget shortfall or anticipated property tax increase. Things that could affect this number include Affordable Care Act requirements to fund certain services, certain recycling options under consideration, and funding requests that will be coming later from the school systems. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the compensation adjustment means that everyone gets a raise. Clarence Grier said yes, but that's based on what they did this year. The number could go up, down, or be taken out completely. He also clarified that the sales tax figure cited earlier of$1.3 million reflects anticipated growth over the $16 million budgeted this year. The County expected actual receipts this year to be about $18 million. He also confirmed that using $5.7 million of fund balance would likely leave fund balance at a little above 17%, as he expected to be at about 20% at the end of this fiscal year if things stay the way they are. Michael Talbert said the County had set aside funds the past two years to address post-employee benefits and would consider doing that again in this next budget. The County has about $6 million set aside against a liability of about $64 million (that is a balance sheet consideration). Clarence Grier said he expects the current bond ratings will at least be maintained, if not go up. The County is in a good financial position, a good budgetary position. The only caveat he offered was that sooner or later the County will have to address the use of fund balance, which equates to about 3.5 cents on the current tax rate. At some point they will need a tax increase to take care of the fund balance, but he does not foresee that in this upcoming year. Chair Jacobs asked him when was the last time they had a general tax increase and Clarence Grier said 2008. Discussion ensued about when other taxes such as the Chapel Hill-Carrboro district tax had been raised. Commissioner Jacobs said the point is, for the vast majority of Orange County residents, there has only been one general property tax rate increase and that was when the school system needed funds to open an elementary school. Michael Talbert reiterated that the 1.5% increase reflected "natural" growth such as new vehicles on the road and new construction coming on line. There will not be a revaluation of real property until 2017. Clarence Grier explained that changes in the collection of vehicle property taxes (now being done by the State in association with motor vehicle registrations) are causing collection rates to go up from 89-90% to 95-96%, maybe even 98% this year. He said as of now, RMV collections exceed last year by $1.3 million. Michael Talbert said these are early numbers based on December figures and will change some as they go forward. There will be another 3 months of revenue data to work with later in the budget process. Chair Jacobs recalled long-standing discussions over the years in the School Collaboration Group about pursuing equity in school funding by lowering the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district tax rate and using general funds instead. He said it is worth having that balancing act discussion every year. Commissioner Rich asked what happened to those who do not pay taxes and whether the County forecloses on their homes. Clarence Grier said they try to avoid foreclosures. He confirmed that the County has a system to assist people. Michael Talbert said the figure for school funding of 48.1% is a target that has been around for 10-20 years. The County sometimes goes over that, but if it looks like the number would come up short, the County increases funding to meet the target. They are forecasting they will be above that target just with normal growth, without considering an ADM (average daily membership) increase or a school debt service increase. Commissioner Price asked about how the national economic situation affects the County's numbers. Clarence Grier does not see much fluctuation in our budget. Property tax collections have stayed the same or gone up over the past 4 years as the economy has recovered. He does not foresee any problems with the revenue streams that the County controls. In response to Commissioner Dorosin's question, Clarence Grier said the 48.1% target does not include the local district tax. The Board agreed that they had accomplished the following objective established for this segment of the retreat agenda: Objective: That the Board obtains a comprehensive understanding of the County's projected revenue estimates and anticipated budgetary impacts on Fiscal 2014/2015. B. Budget Goals Fiscal 2014/2015 (Rod Visser) Rod Visser explained that the objective for the next segment of the retreat agenda is for the Board to identify those Budget Goals for Fiscal 2014-15 about which the Board has consensus. The Board agreed to spend 15-20 minutes generating ideas, without immediately evaluating them, then discussing the list to see if there might be 3 or 5 or 15 around which they might have consensus. The following list of ideas for possible budget goals was developed: Budget Goals • Defending the quality of public education • Ensure our safety net services • Funding sewer construction and hook ups in Rogers Road area • Continue improvement in public safety • Give priority to funding core county services ( before discretionary services) • Support broad range of economic development– new and existing businesses ( make sure to support infrastructure) • Ensure Information Technology Department approach is state of the art for Board of County Commissioners, citizens, transparency • Resources to download agenda items individually rather than en masse • Reducing inequities in funding between two school districts, even if it means raising the general property tax (since one school system has a school district tax) • Targeted funding to address child poverty (e.g. increase childcare subsidies) • Address hunger issues with children (additional subsidies) • Address inequities through long term plan • Sound land use planning • Re-visit school funding equity as means of challenging the Board's assumptions • Consider jail alternatives, maintain funding for drug treatment court • Address school to prison pipeline • Consider limit to viability of tax increase Rod Visser noted that there are some inherent conflicts among some of the ideas the Board has just generated that the Board will have to talk through. He expected that there would be consensus around some subset of these. He also tested the assumption that even for those issues around which there is NOT Board consensus, the Board discussion is useful to the Manager and staff regarding how they put together the Manager's recommended budget. Michael Talbert said that is very accurate, but while these ideas are excellent, he is not sure they can address them all in one year. The goal of this section is what does the Board want to accomplish next year. To Commissioner McKee's earlier point, if they undertake new initiatives not included in the basic budget estimates presented earlier, they may need a tax increase. Commissioner Gordon said some are general goals and then more specific goals- quality education is a goal they do now—a general goal. She wants to be sure that undertaking any of these ideas as goals does not adversely affect the 14 goals they adopted in 2009. Chair Jacobs said he agreed with Commissioner Gordon's general point, and explained that he used the word "defend" for education because what the State is doing requires us to make extra efforts to maintain what we are already doing and that may impact how much money we have for other things. He picked the word "defend" because it's not a normal situation - public education is under attack. Commissioner McKee noted as an example that he does not foresee pulling social workers back out of schools, so that is one area where there will need to be an increase in educational funding. Rod Visser noted that is hard to think in the "here and now" of all the implications of each of the ideas generated. He asked the Board to consider if it is okay for the Manager and staff to come back and notify you if they become aware of circumstances that make a goal Commissioners may identify now either inadvisable or less advisable or conflicting with the previously established 14 goals. Commissioner Gordon said she thinks she has answered her own question - they are identifying emphases for next year. If conflicts with general goals are identified, they will deal with that during the budget process. Discussion ensued about how to go about identifying consensus budget goals based on the list just generated by Commissioners. Commissioner Dorosin suggested they prioritize from among the identified goals. During a scheduled 15 minute break in the agenda, the Clerk compiled electronically the ideas generated on the flip charts and provided a printed copy of the list of potential budget goals to all Board members. The Board settled on the idea that each Commissioner vote for their 5 top priorities and leave the other ideas unmarked on their sheet. Not voting for a particular idea does not mean they disagree with the goal just that it is not among their highest priorities. Staff will tally up the individual Commissioner votes and report that information back during the afternoon session. If time can be carved out of the remainder of the agenda, the Board would like to discuss the priority goals, but Michael Talbert indicated even just having the rankings of priority goals would be valuable to him and to staff. Michael Talbert reiterated that the County has three multi-year strategic plans in place already approved by the Board — Library, Information Technology, and Emergency Services. Staff will continue to implement those plans unless the Board tells them to stop. He suggested the Commissioners consider that in making their rankings. Commissioner Price wondered if that means that her idea about state of the art IT needs to be considered. Michael Talbert said that as far as the strategic plan, no, but to Commissioner Gordon's point about simplifying the agenda download process, he suggests that being a work session topic between now and the budget wrap-up. They are doing the process differently now than in 2012 and that has implications for people that do it online versus those that receive paper. There may or may not be budgetary impacts, for example if specific software would need to be purchased, and there would be timing impacts. Those are important discussions to have. C. Capital Investment Plan - Fiscal 2014/2015 Changes -Additions & Deletions 2014/2015 (Paul Laughton & Michael Talbert & Rod Visser) Rod Visser explained that the objective for the next segment of the retreat agenda is that the Board obtains a full understanding of projects included in the Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal 2014/2015, the financial impact for Fiscal 2014/2015, and provide direction on any changes to the Capital Investment Plan for Fiscal 2014/2015. Paul Laughton (Finance and Administrative Services) provided a detailed review and answered Commissioners' questions about the CIP information included at Attachment 1 b, pages 9-12 of the retreat agenda packet. He said the Board only approves the first year funding in the CIP, and that this is a planning tool. Staff wanted to show what they currently have in the CIP for 2014-15, $27.9 million. However, because the Culbreth Middle School science wing was funded entirely in 2013-14, the $27.9 million figure will drop by about $4.1 million. Paul Laughton noted a planned $2,000,000 allocation for Northern Human Services Center. Michael Talbert explained that this would be a February work session topic so the Board could discuss whether they want to add wings. Commissioner Jacobs noted that the cancellation of this week's work session would require re-prioritization of future work session topics. Michael Talbert noted that staff would come back to the Board with recommendations about how to cascade missed work session topics onto 3-4 future scheduled work session agendas. Michael Talbert noted that they had contracted with an outside consultant on a radio tower coverage study that would be coming back to the Board soon on a work session agenda. Commissioner Dorosin inquired if this would be the end of spending on this or would this be a recurring capital improvement. Michael Talbert noted that this topic would come back regularly as population grows and technology changes. Commissioner Rich asked if this includes changing from 800MHz to 700 MHz systems. Michael Talbert indicated that is being investigated and would be addressed at the upcoming work session. They are also investigating how they might partner with the State's VIPER system, to include other County services such as Animal Services and bus services, so as not to have to build a separate system. Commissioner Pelissier said they need to get information about the new radio systems as they relate to a new program called FirstNet, which related to communication for safety purposes. Paul Laughton noted that 2014-15 includes $2.4 million for the Lands Legacy Program to replace 2001 approved bond authorization that had lapsed. Commissioner Dorosin asked if that money would actually be spent in 2014-15 and whether it would be limited to purchasing land. Paul Laughton noted there is about $1.5 million available right now, and that Dave Stancil expects much of that will be expended this year and next. Michael Talbert explained that in the past, lands legacy funds have been used for the purchase of land banking or property and/or for conservation easements. It can be used for both purposes but it would be a Board decision on how to move forward. He explained how the bond funds had lapsed, and that the Board is under no obligation to allocate this money, other than that voters had previously approved such funding. Commissioner Rich noted that at their last Board meeting, the Board had approved a Lands Legacy Action Plan and that she assumed the Board would not change anything in that plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that a Parks Master Plan is coming forward in May that may change the way they look at these issues. He said that different attorneys may interpret things differently, but he understands that Lands Legacy funds cannot be used for conservation easements because such properties are not open to the public. Some bond money did go to park development, but that's specifically what they told voters they would do. He mentioned that finding appropriate land to buy is a challenge - several properties are being looked at in the Upper Eno and Bingham Township. Michael Talbert added that such purchases are leveraged with other funds coming in. Paul Laughton summarized that the County portion of the CIP for 2014-15 on page 10 totals about $6.9 million. Commissioner Jacobs raised several questions and flags. They had deferred talking about the development of Blackwood Farm until after they had talked about the space needs. He said they don't have a placeholder for that yet, but based on their last board meeting, there may be some interest in moving that item up. He questioned the $400,000 for future planning for Southern Human Services Center. He said, not that they don't need it, but concerns about protection from the Chapel Hill development process led to a more adversarial relationship than they have now. He does not want to base public policy on trying to get through the process before more regulations kick in. Millhouse Road does not have a concept plan. The County needs a group, whether with Chapel Hill and/or Carrboro, or other partners, and talk about their vision for this land and get the public involved, then spend money on it. Lastly, he would like to elevate handicapped accessibility, both inside and outside County facilities. Funding is included in various budgets, and it is happening slowly, but he would like to have higher visibility for this in the CIP. Paul Laughton said they have talked with Asset Management Services about this topic recently. They have met with all staff about their CIP requests as of now, but they have not yet met with the Manager, so they are still going through projects with departments. They won't receive the schools' CIP until Feb. 7th (CHCCS) and OCS on Feb. 11th. Michael Talbert added that the Southern Orange campus is a long range planning issue, with three separate building sites that required individual special use permits and processes. They are trying to get the development rights for the long term and be able to plan for the next 20 years. Commissioner Rich asked about a development agreement process versus a SUP process for the site. Michael Talbert explained that the Town Council initially instructed staff to work on a development agreement, but later changed their minds to a special use process that the County is currently working under and moving forward on. There is no specific building in the SUP, but building sites with infrastructure the County wants to put in. Commissioner Rich suggested running the Millhouse Road property through the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group. Commissioner Gordon said she thought they should leave in the $400,000 for Southern Human Services site planning. Michael Talbert explained how planning money might be used and gave an example of perhaps moving a road later if needed because the Seymour Center site expansion would be constrained by the existing road. He said planning for infrastructure would give them flexibility for the future. Paul Laughton noted there is no funding included at this point for the affordable housing impact fee reimbursement. That is something they look at every year—there is $170,000 in the current year. He will be meeting with Tara Fikes on this, so the Board might see a change on this when the CIP is presented on March 11. Paul Laughton explained in more detail the allocations to Special Revenue Fund projects on page 10 of the retreat agenda packets. He said to date the County has collected about $4.2 million in Article 46 sales tax revenue and spent about $1.1 million for schools and economic development. CHCCS has their funding going to technology and repairs identified in their assessment of older facility needs. OCS has allocated its funds for their One to One initiative for laptops. Total Article 46 funding budgeted for 2014-15 is about $2.7 million. Paul thinks staff may need to come back to the Board at some point to reconsider the percentages allocated to make sure there are enough allocations to cover debt service. Commissioner Dorosin inquired about the small business investment grant line item and how that differs from incentives. Commissioner McKee says there will be a meeting next week— he will get a printout regarding what has been going on. Paul Laughton said nothing has been spent on business investment grants and no Article 46 funds have been spent for small business loans either. Paul will get the definitions of these to Commissioner Dorosin. Given time constraints for this agenda item, the Board agreed to go through the rest of capital projects by exception, dealing only with projects about which they have questions In response to a question from Commissioner Price, Chair Jacobs explained how the Board had adopted a policy based on recommendations from Economic Development Director Steve Brantley about how Article 46 proceeds might be divided up into various pots. Paul Laughton cited various percentages or percentage ranges approved by the Board, with the largest being 60% allocated for debt service. Commissioner Rich asked what, if any, are the procedures for having a long term plan for solid waste. It seemed that they discuss solid waste on an ad hoc basis, a little bit at a time. She said they will do an injustice financially to the County if they don't think about it long term. Paul Laughton said each area has a breakdown each year where improvements are to be and the funding allocated, for example for solid waste convenience center improvements. The Sanitation portion has a good plan for improvements, for example for large pieces of equipment. Recycling improvements depend on policy decisions remaining to be made. Commissioner Rich said she is thinking about the future and different ways to handle trash. Michael Talbert said they do not have a strategic plan for solid waste. They continue to meet to examine new technologies. They closed the landfill a year ago and the interlocal agreement essentially lapsed at that point. They are trying to reinitiate that with their recycling efforts. There is not a master plan on what to do with solid waste in 5-10 years. They will continue to look at options. Right now, everything is going through Durham as the Board approved. That is a temporary short term solution — there is no long term solution. He thinks they are probably not going to site a new landfill. Chair Jacobs said the managers are trying to work on a 5 year plan to work together. A strategic plan is predicated on having partners first. The Board asked the Manager and staff to try to develop a new agreement to succeed the old one, but that's when Chapel Hill decided to bid itself out separately. Commissioner Rich asked when does the short term solution become the long term solution. She said she wondered when the County would think about being more responsible for our own trash as opposed to sending it to Durham. She noted that there may not be an answer to that right now. Commissioner Pelissier said they do need the partnerships because Orange County by itself generates so little. She agreed with the Manager that they will not site another landfill in Orange County. There is a lot of technology out there being developed that is not ready yet. For a county of our size, there isn't a clear answer out there. She said they may need to partner with others, not just the local towns but maybe Durham. Chair Jacobs said he and others met with the Durham City Mayor last year and that they had explored alternative technologies — both with and without Orange County waste - and decided they were not big enough. He said they need to find a regional solution. It's easy to say the County is not doing enough, but the problem is finding technology that is cost effective and environmentally sound, without even getting into siting issues that will be awesome, especially for a regional facility. He thinks a good thing for the Board to do at this point is to list out what should be the steps and check with the Towns to see if they are on board with the steps we have articulated. Commissioner Rich said she wanted to know if technology is not ready for them, this is the year they should check into it again. Her concern is that right now they don't have a plan. Rod Visser asked the Board to consider whether they feel the objective for this segment has been met, recognizing there will be some changes to come when the Manager's recommended CIP is presented. Paul Laughton confirmed there would be some changes related to water and sewer and with solid waste as it relates to the timeline for the Eubanks Road SWCC and High Rock Road SWCC. Some numbers will change in CIP as they are still meeting with staff. The CIP includes a large Phase 1 expansion of the SportsPlex at $950,000. Rod Visser asked if any member of the Board feels strongly about providing direction to staff about making any change to any project as presented. Commissioner Dorosin inquired if the EPA matter gets resolved on Rogers Road and the Board decides to go forward with funding the sewer, would that be folded into the CIP or some other way, assuming there is consensus that there are no more impediments to moving forward and we want to proceed expeditiously Michael Talbert said the short answer is "yes". The managers are working on a plan, as instructed by the task force, on how to make this happen and how to make this work. He believes the County and Chapel Hill are on board with funding 43% shares (Carrboro's share would be 14%) and with moving forward on at least initial planning for sewer, including engineering. He sees longer term CIP funding — not next year, but maybe two years out—for funding for actual construction. Commissioner Dorosin inquired do they have resources to start or would there need to be adjustments to this CIP. Michael Talbert said funding would be in the general CIP. They would have to evaluate resources and priorities. They have the money to do the planning stages. In two years, though, if the Towns don't go along, the County could not come up with $7-8 million without cutting something back. Those discussions have not yet occurred, however. In response to a comment by Chair Jacobs, Paul Laughton confirmed that today's agenda item is just for 2014-15 projects because that's what the Board concentrates on approving funding for next year's CIP. The remainder of the CIP is for long range forecasting and planning that you evaluate every year. He will bring to the Board's attention any deviations from planned funding in the out years when they present the CIP on March 11. Rod Visser tested the assumption that this session is an opportunity for Commissioners to give the Manager and staff a "heads up" now regarding any changes in the CIP they would like to see, but that does not forestall their bringing up other changes that occur to them six weeks from now in March. Michael Talbert said he saw two issues on their list of possible budget goals that have potentially large capital impacts: education and Rogers Road sewer. Commissioner Price asked about the confidence level staff has in projections of lottery proceeds. Paul Laughton said that they provide to the schools the estimates that they receive from the State. He noted that the State used to provide counties with $176 million in annual lottery proceeds but that number is now down to $100 million. Orange County is only getting about $1.3 million in lottery funds now. At peak, he believed the County received about $2.3 million in lottery funds. Commissioners and Manager indicated that they were satisfied that they had met the objective set out for the CIP portion of the agenda. D. Bond Referendum - Debt Capacity, Property Tax Impact, Bond Rating (Clarence Grier— Presenter& Rod Visser) Rod Visser explained that the objective for this segment is for the Board to review possible Bond Referendum timelines, amount of a referendum, and the Board practice of utilizing bond task forces, and provide direction to staff. Clarence Grier reviewed possible options/funding/debt service for a possible $100 million bond referendum, to be held at the Board's discretion. Key figures are included in the spreadsheet on page 13, Attachment 1-c, of the Board's retreat agenda packet. Clarence Grier said they have been discussing a $100 million bond to be paid back in 20 years, as required by the Local Government Commission (LGC). Debt service on $100 million would be approximately $6.7 million, or 4.18 cents on the current tax rate. He reviewed current outstanding County debt and bond ratings (Fitch —AAA; Standard & Poors —AAA; Moody's —AA1 with a positive outlook). The assumptions built into the spreadsheet include $100m in staggered issues every two years of$40 million in 2015-16, then $30 million two years later, then the final $30 million two years after that. Bond approval date is assumed as November 2015 — if not done in November 2014, there is no primary in May 2015 so must wait until November general election for a bond referendum vote. He reviewed the spreadsheet for current debt and potential new County jail debt service. He pointed out that in this scenario, maximum outstanding debt would come in FY2020-21 with a tax rate effect of about 3.8 cents. To stay within County policy limiting debt service expenditures to15% of the General Fund, expenditures in that fiscal year would have to increase to about $221.3 million. He noted that if real property growth and sales tax growth continued with current projections, we would need about .28 cents on the tax rate to be able to cover the $221.3 million in expenditures. In response to Commissioner McKee's question, Clarence Grier confirmed that he assumed that the projected growth in revenues is not consumed by other expenses. Clarence Grier explained how CIP and possible new jail debt are incorporated in the spreadsheet. He noted options of how some of the $300 million in capital needs identified by the two school systems' assessments might be addressed with a $100 million bond. Discussion ensued about how jail debt service might be addressed through an alternative financing mechanism and not be included in a bond referendum, as it might be considered a controversial element that might lead to failure of a bond referendum. Clarence Grier reiterated that this particular scenario is just for illustrative purposes — no decisions have been made yet about a bond referendum. Commissioner Price asked about school needs and the need to build a new school. Michael Talbert said the schools had done their facility assessments and included some remodelings and additions of older schools, which may push out some of this further in time so that a new school might not be needed for 2, 5, or 10 years.. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are longer term items in their CIP with debt service that are excluded in this scenario. Clarence Grier said all is included in the CIP Debt Service column. He wanted to show them how a $100 million bond referendum would affect their debt capacity going forward. The components of a bond referendum have not been decided. Chair Jacobs said he expected the school systems to come back to the Board with a couple hundred million dollars worth of proposed upgrades for health & safety reasons, structural reasons, and capacity reasons. There might be discussion of perhaps three separate $70million bond packages. They are looking to expand capacities of existing facilities, for example the new Culbreth Middle School wing. He noted the current plan for a new jail is for a 300-bed capacity, but it could start out as a phased project. Clarence Grier confirmed this, that the full capacity cost would be $30,250,000, saying that if they cut it in half, then debt capacity would go up. Chair Jacobs remarked on a visit he and Commissioner Pelissier made to the Guilford County Jail that had been built in pods that can be phased in over time. Clarence Grier cautioned that these estimates are based on current interest rates. If future rates rise, additional debt capacity will be lowered. That is why it is so important to maintain their high bond ratings to keep the cost of borrowing as low as possible. He also noted that a $100 million bond would represent half of the County's annual operating budget. Michael Talbert emphasized that even though debt service estimates are conservative, so are their budget estimates. With revenue growth of 1.5-2%, they are coming out of the great recession. He hoped that they will get to 3, 4, or 5 per cent at some point. He indicated that Clarence Grier has provided estimates on a very conservative basis. The Board discussed concerns and implications of holding a referendum at different scheduled elections in 2014, 2015, or 2016. Reluctance was expressed about holding a referendum in an expected low turnout election. There was some desirability of pursuing a November 2014 referendum, but significant concern that there would be inadequate time to address all the steps needed for a successful bond referendum, including partner, stakeholder, and citizen involvement in the process. Michael Talbert said that to pursue a November 2014 referendum, the Board would have to make major decisions on this between now and summer. The Board can take it as information today and add it to a work session on March 11, but if they need a task force they need to make decisions today about that. Chair Jacobs said they could add a work session between now and March 11 to discuss this, if need be. Michael Talbert said it is feasible to address this again on March 11, but he agreed with Commissioner Dorosin that the longer they push this out, they have by default decided not to do this in November 2014. Commissioner McKee said it took about 18 months in 2001 to put a bond referendum in place. Commissioner Pelissier said they have not even discussed affordable housing yet; they need time to prepare and educate the citizens on this topic in a bond. She noted the first time they put up the quarter-cent sales tax for a vote, they had inadequate time to educate voters about the issues. The second time we were better prepared. She does not think they can realistically do it in November 2014. Commissioner Gordon said she has experience in bond referendums, both ones that passed and failed. It is her judgment, based on successful bond referenda, that the more deliberate a process there is of getting stakeholders on board, and taking time to educate voters, then the more likelihood of having a better chance of success. Rod Visser said that as the facilitator he has heard a lot of disappointment that they want to do this but do not feel there is enough time to do it right for November 2014. It sounds like they are providing guidance to the Manager and staff that they should not be jumping through "hoops" to try to get everything done for a November 2014 bond referendum. He asked if anyone disagreed that is a fair reading of the discussion just held. No one stated disagreement, but Chair Jacobs suggested that they could take the February 11 work session for staff to bring information about what would be involved in developing a November 2014 bond referendum back to the Board of County Commissioners. It may be premature because of things beyond our control, but he is hesitant to vote either yes or know without the Board knowing what is involved. Rod Visser pointed out that what Chair Jacobs proposed also represents a decision and asked the Board how they feel about that. He heard a request that staff pull together some of the things they have discussed today about timelines and impacts and getting partners together and bring that information back for the February 11 work session. Then the Board could consider at that point whether the writing is on the wall that November 2014 is out of the question, or whether it could get done. This would be a deliberate postponement of that decision until after the Board gets more information. Commissioner Rich said she preferred Commissioner Jacobs's approach. Unlike Commissioner Gordon, she has not lived through one of these bond referenda. They know a number from Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools but they haven't heard anything from the Orange County Schools. Rod Visser asked if there is anyone uncomfortable with that proposal from Chair Jacobs, or does that seem workable to the Board and the Manager. Michael Talbert said he thinks it is workable, but cautioned he did not know how much information they would have from Orange County Schools. They will do the best they can with what they have. Rod Visser said he is heard reluctant skepticism but a willingness to get more information and take another look at it on February 11. Michael Talbert confirmed that it would be fine to discuss other related topics like task forces on February 11 as well. The Board agreed to get the information on this date. The Board took a half hour break for lunch. 2. Goals for Strategic Communications Plan A. Presentation (Todd McGee, Director of Public Relations — NCACC) Todd McGee, Public Relations Director for the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, made a presentation titled "County Communications", based on a set of PowerPoint slides that are included with the background materials for this meeting of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. Todd McGee explained that in his capacity as President of the National Association of County Information Officers (an affiliate of the National Association of Counties), he was involved last fall in carrying out a non-scientific survey about what counties are doing to communicate with their citizens. The survey instrument was sent to county managers in about a dozen states. They received over 200 responses and felt they had received a representative cross-section of the country and a pretty good idea of what is going on out there. Commissioner Rich asked if we know whether people are reading the newspaper itself or online. Todd McGee said he recently looked into this and found that 55% of people say they get their news primarily from television; 20% say they get their news online; 10% report they get the news from hardcopy newspapers; and perhaps 5% get their news from social media. He noted that the percentage getting news primarily from newspapers could be higher than 10% as some portion of those getting it online are likely getting it from newspaper websites. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is any data showing how many people follow national news versus local news. Todd McGee said surveys he has seen do not differentiate between local and national news, and he noted the challenge for local governments in making themselves heard in this environment. Commissioner Rich said that there are a number of citizens who attend Orange County meetings and blog from them. She observed that you cannot control their message, which may not necessarily be the message the Board is trying to convey. The blogs may just reflect opinion from someone who considers themselves a media person. Todd McGee said that reflected the power of the Internet— it is important for commissioners to be aware that is out there, as bloggers may not be following the ethical rules of journalism. He said that a consideration for commissioners is how they will treat bloggers. Will they treat them as regular media, providing them with media packets or a seat in a designated media area. They cannot control what they write, but if you have a good communication plan in place, you can respond a lot more quickly to any misinformation they may put out. Todd McGee referred to the top slide on page 4 of the handout which shows a bar graph regarding all county responses to the question "who on your staff is/are responsible for media relations and communications with the public?" Todd McGee noted that only about 25% of counties have a dedicated Public Information Officer (PIO) position. Almost half cite the county manager/administrator as having media/communications responsibilities. The bottom slide on page 4 of the handout shows responses to the same question for counties in Orange County's population size range. In this group, nearly 60% have a dedicated PIO position, and less than 40% rely on the manager/administrator for this function. Todd McGee said that with regard to news releases, he believes in a philosophy of "less is more". If you send out press releases on every issue, he believes that decreases the likelihood that media will read what you send out. If you limit it to really important things, they may pay more attention. Todd McGee said the Knight Foundation did a white paper on "what is needed to have an effective communications environment". The slide at the top of page 7 of the handout provides the following list of eight essential elements: • Government information available online • Commitment to transparency • Quality local journalism • Opportunities for citizens • Public library • Ready access to critical community information • Wired local schools • High-speed Internet access Todd McGee said he believes the environment in Orange County is ripe to succeed with a communications plan. Todd McGee said that a few months ago NACIO did a webinar for members that walked them through writing a communications plan. He said his slides at the bottom of page 7 and on page 8 of the handout borrow liberally from what was shared: • Take stock of internal elements — County Mission Statement — Existing Communications Plan — Board's adopted goals/strategic vision — Existing Communications Policies (social media) — Crisis Communications Plan — Existing Communications Channels Todd McGee noted the importance of a county's website as an existing channel not only to provide information to citizens, but also to learn (e.g. from statistics about page visits) about what kinds of information citizens are most interested in. Then a county might figure ways to feature that information more prominently. In response to a question from Commissioner Gordon, Todd McGee clarified that a "crisis communication plan" should be part of your overall communications plan. He said two choices are to either: take an existing plan and tweak it; or, start from scratch. If you decide to start from scratch, these are the elements that should be included. Michael Talbert noted that while doing research on this topic, he found an entity that had a full plan, but that decided to do a separate strategic communications plan around dealing with the great recession. He cited this as an example of an event in your community that may warrant something special. Todd McGee observed that a bond referendum such as the Commissioners discussed earlier in the day might be an example of that type of special event. Commissioner Price asked where a county typically puts a crisis communication plan. Todd McGee said that in an active crisis, it is important to have one speaker. Who that person is depends on the nature of the crisis (e.g. Sheriff, Emergency Management Director, Public Health Director). He said it is important to spread the word through as many channels as possible. • Take stock of external elements — Identify Partners — Survey Citizens — Local media • Set goals and objectives — Tie goals to mission and values — Objectives should be specific and measurable — Determine strategies for each goal Rod Visser asked if Commissioners had any further questions about things that Todd McGee had specifically addressed in his presentation, or did not address. Commissioner Rich asked about what a social media policy entails. Todd McGee said that you have to plan for how you will use social media before you get involved. The worst thing you can do is start a Twitter feed or Facebook page, update it like crazy for a month, and then forget about it. A plan would identify appropriate channels to use and who would be responsible for keeping them updated. Consider whether you have countywide accounts/pages or whether individual departments may have them. Consider whether to use the county seal on all — it is a great branding opportunity. Consider whether you allow public comments, and if so, what do you do with them. Twitter should be updated at least 2-3 times per week. You may get away with updating Facebook only 1-2 per week. Remember you can use social media to push notifications. More than 50% of mobile phone users have Facebook on their phones. A notification about a tornado, for example, could be put on a county Facebook page and pushed to all those phones. This concluded Todd McGee's presentation. B. Discussion/Plan Outline (Todd McGee & Rod Visser) Rod Visser drew the Board's attention to the stated objective for this portion of the retreat - that the Board review and discuss a County Strategic Communications Plan outline and provide direction to staff. He explained the context within which the objective for this segment of the retreat agenda was developed by the retreat planning committee. The consensus view was to look at this topic today "at the 30,000 foot level" and not to get "too far down in the weeds" with the level of detail today. It did not seem feasible to try to sit down and write a strategic communications plan in 1.5 —2 hours. Rod Visser said that the challenge the committee gave to Michael Talbert was to craft the outline of a strategic communication plan and to list the basic elements that should be included in that framework. He did that and included it as Attachment 2a on pages 14-15 of the retreat agenda packet. The packet also includes sample communications plans at Attachments 2c through 2f that Michael Talbert researched, from four jurisdictions: Hickory, NC; Clayton, MO; Red Wing, MN; and Prince William County, VA. The agenda packet also includes at Attachment 2b a 1999 proposed Orange County Board of Commissioners Strategic Communications Plan. Rod Visser asked Commissioners in light of those four sample plans, any independent research they may have done, Todd McGee's presentation, and the 1999 plan, what reactions do they have to the outline Michael Talbert drafted. He said that during the retreat planning meetings, Michael Talbert had suggested desirable next steps of putting together a County Communications Team to work on fleshing out the details of the framework. That team might include County staff from various departments who are already involved in public information and outreach efforts. The idea would be for the Manager to work with that group to bring back a fully fleshed out strategic communications plan along an established timeline for the Board to approve and implement. Michael Talbert added that there are several communications principles listed in today's packet that the communications team would keep the Board abreast of. Not only would the team develop the plan, but after implementation they would monitor it and develop changes needed as social media and technology changes, bringing it back perhaps once a year for any needed Board approved changes. He sees the draft as a suggested starting point. Rod Visser suggested as a possible way to proceed that he record on flipcharts Commissioner reactions to Michael Talbert's draft, as well as any other specific elements or characteristics not mentioned in that framework that they would like staff to consider including in a fully written communications plan. He asked if that would be a useful approach or if there were other alternative ideas on how to proceed. The Board then spent about 40 minutes discussing matters related to a strategic communications plan and developed the following list of comments and observations that should be considered as the plan is developed: • What is the role of the Board of Commissioners in a strategic communications plan? Presumably, at least approval of the plan • What is the purpose of the plan • Periodic check-in by the Board on how the plan is going after implementation • Board members as "ears" of the community can give feedback as part of the team • With regard to tools, we need to go out to where the people are — currently we expect them to come to us • Red Wing, MN communication philosophy (p 68 in agenda packets) —we should include philosophy as a section of the plan • Communication is a two way street; not just broadcasting; also receiving negative feedback and demonstrating that you have heard and considered that feedback • Consider the social part of communications — how to frame issues based on social science research • More goals are needed in the outline: crisis, controversial/fast breaking issues (p 16); target audiences • Goal for enhanced communication between the County and municipal governments and school boards in Orange County • Target audiences include the General Assembly, regional boards, and government entities • Example of meetings from which Triangle Transit Authority or Triangle J Council of Governments discussions should be communicated to the Board of Commissioners and feedback the other way • Reduce "siloed" communications • After action reports (safety net funding example) may highlight a specific issue — consider more detailed communications as well • More deliberate (vs. ad hoc) response to issues and citizen queries (avoiding personally identifiable information) • May have to use all methods to capture attention of the most people possible • Example of the Rockingham County Kettner Award for outreach to rural parts of the county that may not rely on technology • The best press releases include a personal element with testimony from someone who benefitted • "Kids won't answer their cell phones but they will respond immediately to text messages" • Be selective in the use of press releases to preserve the efficacy of those you do send out • Make sure county employees get press releases so they can be knowledgeable for their neighbors • Use different tools for different target audiences • Keep the plan simple at the beginning • Identify communications team - include commissioners • Team should include departmental staff members who are already pushing info out Following this discussion among Commissioners, Michael Talbert outlined a general timeline and process that he envisions at this time. He is thinking of coming back in a fairly quick period, possibly 1-3 months, with a still fairly broad outline. He would involve the Public Affairs Director Carla Banks and what he perceives to be the team, get their input in terms of all the different target audiences we are trying to reach. They would identify all the different outlets we could use and start categorizing to see how we could put those together. This would still be a fairly high level outline that the Board could approve and tell the team to go find strategies to make it work. Almost all the plans you have seen are homegrown. There is not a consultant who does this. They arrive out of necessity at the local government. Discussion ensued about the timing of when the strategic communications plan item would come back for further Board consideration, taking into consideration the "cascading" of work session topics that would be taking place over the next several months, as discussed earlier in the day. Commissioner Gordon advocated that the item come back at the April 8 work session. A majority of the Board members agreed to have the Manager make recommendations about which outstanding work session topics, including the strategic communications plan, should be addressed at which work sessions over the next few months. The Board took a 15 minute scheduled break. 3. Economic Development Incentive Guidelines (Steve Brantley- Presenter& Rod Visser) Rod Visser drew the Board's attention to PowerPoint slides (Attachment 3a) and spreadsheets (Attachment 3b) that Economic Development Director Steve Brantley had provided for inclusion in the retreat agenda packets. The stated objective for this segment of the agenda was that the Board review and discuss Economic Development Incentive Guidelines and provide direction to staff. Steve Brantley said that he and his staff had spent 5 months researching what other parts of North Carolina do with economic development incentives. Their research was focused primarily on business recruitment, encompassing corporate headquarters, research & development (R&D), warehousing, and the like, on par with the recent Japanese success. He said that most large projects like Morinaga include an incentive component in the decision-making process, whether with the company or site selection consultant. The prospect of incentives (or not) can affect a decision even to make a first visit to a potential site. People's reactions to incentives range from repugnance to ambivalence to acceptance as a part of doing business. The reality is that when trying to put businesses in the County's economic development districts of the caliber of Morinaga, it's a normal part of the site selection process. Steve Brantley discussed various aspects of State incentives, including matching requirements. He explained that incentives have a number of uses, including providing a competitive advantage. He provided additional detail about the AKG North America and Morinaga America Foods projects reflected on the slide on page 110 of the agenda packet. He described the formula for calculating incentives, and explained that they are not a rebate of property taxes, which is not allowed under North Carolina law. When conditions are met, incentives are paid to the company in the form of a performance grant. In response to a question from Commissioner Rich, Steve Brantley explained how counties and municipalities can be in competition with each other for projects and how they must coordinate with the State on packaging incentives. He explained that staff had surveyed the 40 jurisdictions annotated on the map on page 111, where they personally know individuals on staff and their way of operating. They asked these jurisdictions generally what they do regarding incentives for a project like Morinaga. Only 6 out of 28 counties and 4 out of 12 municipalities have written formal incentives policies; the majority has unpublished guidelines to allow them to set a performance agreement and broad latitude to confidentially determine grants. Most operate in a manner similar to what Orange County has done, which is a percentage of the taxable value of that project paid back to the company as a grant. Details for each jurisdiction surveyed are included in the spreadsheets at pages 118-121. Steve Brantley explained a handout he provided regarding the Town of Carrboro's incentive agreement with Hampton Inn. That agreement will result in a probable payment by the Town of$475,000 over a 5 year period. His calculation is that the Town incentives reflect 86% of taxable value, which is above the County's precedent to go as high as 75%. He then commented on the map of North Carolina counties at page 115 that shows how each county is categorized as being in Tier 1, 2, or 3 with regard to applicability of State incentives. He gave an example about State Job Development Investment Grants (JDIG), which the State reserves for "the largest of the large" — projects that will create 200 or more jobs. He explained the table on page 116 that demonstrates how Orange County, being in Tier 3, is at a competitive disadvantage with regard to JDIG incentives compared to Tier 2 competitor counties (e.g. Alamance and Granville) and Tier 3 competitors (e.g. Vance and Caswell). He said that incentive policy at the County level can help close that gap. Steve Brantley said that during the past 2.5 — 3 years, the Economic Development office and County Manager have looked at each business project as they have matured from a first site visit to being a real possibility of landing that company, looking at what might be an appropriate incentive, and discussing that in closed session with the Board when appropriate. He noted that a company wants an answer quickly—they don't want a public process or a 3 week wait. He said that he needs to be able to have a ballpark answer that he can quote and have the Manager check with the Board as appropriate. Steve Brantley said that the County's practice of providing performance grants at a maximum of 75% of taxable value for 5 years is in keeping with other jurisdictions. It is not too generous, and is in the median of incentives formulas. This concluded Steve Brantley's presentation. Michael Talbert reiterated that it is really important to have flexibility in what we are doing and how we are doing it, and for Steve Brantley to be able to answer a company almost immediately. He said they also must consider the disadvantage of being a Tier 3 county - that will make a difference for some projects. Some people may be willing to live in Orange and work in Alamance — others may not. He thinks the Board needs to decide whether they want a formal policy or some fairly broad guidelines. Commissioner Jacobs said that they should acknowledge some bottom line parameters that Orange County already has - pay a living wage, low water usage, and provide employee health insurance. If commissioners have other concerns about a project that they would like to raise, we need to create an opportunity for them to do so. Commissioner Pelissier raised a question about whether dealing with projects on a case by case issue constitutes a policy, as she understands from the School of Government is required. Steve Brantley said there are communities that create incentives based on certain business clusters, such as aerospace or health care. He said that among the conditions for State incentive grants are that companies provide employee health insurance and not only that they pay a living wage, but an average salary equal to 100% of the average wage in that county. Since Orange County has the highest per capita wage in North Carolina, it is harder for companies considering Orange County to meet the prevailing wage requirement of the State incentive programs. The Board discussed incentives considerations for 15-20 minutes and compiled the following list of comments, questions, and feedback for the Manager and staff: • Do we have a policy by default, and if so, is that insufficient? • Avoid a policy that is so formal, so "down in the weeds", so restrictive as to eliminate Orange County from even initial consideration — maintain flexibility • Staff comes back to the Board before extending offers — internal non- published guidelines are working • Talk about Orange County's competitive advantages - two excellent school systems and quality of life Michael Talbert summarized what he thought he heard the Board say/discuss. That every company that comes will be asking for incentives; but we don't have established policies or guidelines, but informal guidelines, and it sounds like that's where we are headed. He said that Steve Brantley is very conscious of Orange County values when he is approached by businesses. The value Orange County brings to a project is huge in terms of"sense of place", but it is a competitive process. He would like feedback for him, Steve Brantley, and the next manager that they have informal direction in place about how they are going to approach projects. If that is fair and equitable and Commissioners like what they have seen so far, they will continue down that path. If the Board wants to change that, to let staff know now. Rod Visser asked if there is anything commissioners want the Manager and staff to consider doing differently, or should they continue on. He noted that there were no suggestions from Commissioners about doing anything differently. Chair Jacobs asked Steve Brantley to come back with a memo explaining Article 46 sales tax Special Revenue Fund pools of money for economic development initiatives. Steve Brantley said they have not used a business investment grant yet. Chair Jacobs noted the County's willingness to assist existing businesses to expand in Orange County. He asked how the county makes this known to them and how we provide outreach to existing businesses. Steve Brantley mentioned several approaches they are making to do collaborative outreach, but acknowledged the need to do a better job in this regard. At the conclusion of the economic development incentives discussion, Rod Visser asked David Hunt to distribute to Commissioners a handout that compiled their responses from the morning exercise to prioritize potential 2014-15 budget goals. He indicated an intention to return to that document for discussion if there is time remaining after the final scheduled retreat agenda topic. 4. Poverty — County's Role — Direction (Nancy Coston and Tara Fikes — Presenters & Rod Visser) Rod Visser said that during the retreat planning committee discussions, he sensed an urgency to talk about the topic of poverty, but also a sense that it is difficult to address because it is such a big topic— it may be an issue more of managing poverty than eliminating poverty. The committee settled on asking staff for updates on current programs the County has to deal with the impacts of poverty. The objective for this segment of the agenda is for the Board to discuss the update on poverty and provide direction to staff. Social Services Director Nancy Coston said that a third of families slipped into poverty at one time or another during the year. DSS sees that in Orange County with the many people living on the brink. She said that he BOCC has done a lot to help DSS with those kinds of cases. She mentioned a variety of programs that keep people from sliding into abject poverty, mainly Food & Nutrition and Medicaid. Nancy Coston said that a lot of their work is crisis oriented. She acknowledged the additional $100,000 the Board approved this year for Emergency Assistance, with most of that going towards rents and utilities at number two. Some counties don't provide much or any of this funding. Nancy Coston said she thought the Skills Development Center had been very effective. The Work First program for Subsidized Employment was very helpful for folks transitioning after losing jobs, although those funds are no longer available. DSS has been in the process clearing the child care subsidy wait list. She said the fact that there are 12,000 Medicaid families and 6,200 Food & Nutrition households in Orange County demonstrates there is a lot of need. Nancy Coston described how the Adolescent Parenting program works. She noted that one of the huge risk factors for not becoming financially self-sufficient is having a second child before completing high school (or having one child and NOT finishing high school). Housing Director Tara Fikes referred to the information in Attachment 4b at page 123 about 2014 Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Department income levels related to housing affordability. She said that a large number of residents are paying more than 50% of their income for rent (which should not be more than 30%). Utility costs are a big part of housing costs. Tara Fikes then referred to the information on pages 124-125 pertaining to what hourly pay would be needed to provide a housing wage. In North Carolina, in order to afford a two bedroom apartment at an average monthly rent of$737, a person would have to earn $14.17 per hour. With the higher average housing cost in Orange County, that figure would be $16.13 per hour. She explained several HUD programs that focus on assistance with rental housing: the Section 8 voucher program administered by the County: and the low-rent conventional public housing program administered by the Town of Chapel Hill. Those two programs involve nearly 1,000 units of housing. There are also have about 14 apartment complexes throughout Orange County that were built using various forms of federal funding — most are in Chapel Hill and Carrboro and 5 of those are designated for the senior population. Tara Fikes said that is not enough - there is an acute need for rental housing in our community. Most apartment construction in the last few years has been at the luxury level that the average worker is not able to afford. Commissioners and staff discussed the child care subsidy waiting list. Nancy Coston said they started the wait list about 20 and did not take anyone off it for a year and a half. She said they finally received some federal dollars after the State decided what their budget would be so they could take some people off the list by September. Then the federal shutdown happened, and not only could we not take people off the list, they were threatening not to pay the folks already on. Now DSS is working to clear the wait list. When they have a stale waiting list, people's circumstances change as time passes and the clearing of the list can be misleading. She said that if you don't clear the wait list at least once a year (by sending letters out to applicants), it can become an almost unworkable situation. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the list of services provided to low-income families that was included as Attachment 4c at page 126. He noted that a lot of these are based on state and federal funding administered by the County. He is interested in knowing where Orange County can put their own resources to address these issues. Child care subsidies are a great example. Do we need a county-funded Section 8 type housing program or county funded public housing, He is looking for real targeted ways that Orange County can address these issues and make an impact. He said that we ought to be able to find a way to get to the 5,000 kids who are living in severe poverty in this county. Nancy Coston said that for people at the brink, more funding for child care subsidies, rental housing assistance, and occasional emergency assistance would stabilize a number of families. She noted the challenge of sustaining people in decent, affordable housing where they have sufficient income to keep paying the rent. Tara Fikes added that what they hear in the community is about the need for funds for more rental assistance. She suggested that they consider providing incentives for the private market to provide affordable housing units. Chair Jacobs said that he would like us to do some creative thinking about creating rental opportunities for people. He noted the tendency for landlords to consider people in Section 8 housing as stigmatized — perhaps it would seem to be more benign if they were working through Orange County. He said he was struck in discussions with the school systems by how many kids are in free or reduced lunch programs. Chair Jacobs said that a starting place might be programs that worked that no longer have funding. He said that he wonders why we stopped Wheels for Work. Nancy Coston said that several years ago, DSS was obliged to make an $800,000 cut in their budget—Wheels to Work was a victim of that. He suggested that perhaps the County could look into donating retired County vehicles. Chair Jacobs asked for a more complete list of what programs they had that worked in the past but that they could not afford anymore, to see if we can afford it now. He said that picking up federal and state programs may be more ambitious than we can afford, but if she wanted to propose that, he would be willing to listen. He said he is interested in what might keep people out of jail who can't afford to pay bail so they can stay with their families and at their jobs so they can keep up their housing payments. Commissioner McKee asked Nancy Coston to also bring back figures for job training. Nancy Coston noted the importance of job fairs and reattaching people to employment even if temporary. She remarked that statistics show that the longer people remain out of the job market, the harder it is to get hired regardless of the skill level they had before. Commissioner Pelissier asked what have been the federal and state cutbacks the last few years. She said that if you put in child care subsidy money, you can't do it for just one year. She cited the need to understand with additional funding, what the County would be committing to and how that funding would fit into state and federal funding. She also mentioned that she expects that there will be some child poverty initiatives coming from the Board of Health. Commissioner Rich asked how cuts in federal long-term unemployment benefits will affect this situation. She said we need to look at public/private partnerships so the whole community owns the poverty issue, not just governments. She said if they talk about raising taxes, people like teachers could be on the brink. The Board needs to be careful and creative as they think through all of their options. Commissioner Dorosin said he is reluctant to think they are going to take on poverty— that is why he narrowed it down to "child poverty." He said that if we focus, we can begin to address the most severe aspects and make a tangible difference. He said that we need a laser approach at the start, rather than a shotgun approach. Chair Jacobs said every government has its own housing plan without any coordination with the non-profits and other governmental entities, including UNC. He wanted to address this as they talk about affordable housing and a possible bond referendum. He said the presence of the University is one of the reasons for the shortage of housing, and that maybe it would be possible to converse with the new Chancellor about "low hanging fruit." Commissioner Gordon said they should try to figure out something that makes a difference, and that children would be a good place to focus. She emphasized the importance of the resources they spend on education. Commissioner McKee said he agreed on selecting a priority to focus on, but whatever they do has to be interconnected with the entire problem. Commissioner Rich said she brought this topic forward for inclusion in the retreat agenda because of the Assembly of Governments discussion and the formation of a group to work on affordable housing. She said that we can't do it alone —we have to ask for help and to have some sort of group that encompasses all of the players. Chair Jacobs asked if Nancy and Tara had the list of information items requested during this discussion. Nancy Coston said yes, and that she assumed the Board would want to know the costs associated with those things. Commissioner Price asked if staff had any idea how many people have left the County because of the cost of living. Nancy Coston said she does not think they have any numbers that track that. Commissioner Dorosin urged staff to think not just about programs we have or have had, but also to think of things they have not tried before (e.g. take County owned land and build a manufactured housing park). He said we should think about it as broadly as possible rather than be constrained in our thinking. Commissioner Price said that what she thinks seems to work is when governments support community organizations. The Board decided to briefly discuss the tally of the top 5 goals from the list of potential 2014-15 budget goals that had been identified earlier in the retreat. Each commissioner had individually voted in priority order - #1 to #5. By assigning 5 points for each #1 vote, 4 points for each #2 vote, and so on, the tally of the top goals was as follows: 1. Defending the quality of public education —22 points 2. Ensure our safety net services — 16 points 3. Funding for sewer and hook ups in Rogers Road area (construction) -14 points 4. Targeted funding to address child poverty i.e., increase childcare subsidies - 9 points 5. (tie) Support broad range of economic development— new and existing businesses (make sure to support infrastructure) — 8 points 5. (tie) Consider limit to viability of tax increase — 8 points Commissioner Rich said she does not want to discard the other ones. Commissioner Gordon agreed, and said that all of the goals suggested by the Commissioners should at least be considered. Rod Visser said the assumption he would test is that the feedback that the Manager and staff have received from this exercise is useful because it IS prioritized. He said that you can see what the highest priorities are, and there are other things on the list that are still desirable, but you have to take into consideration available resources. Michael Talbert said that is a fair assumption. His quick reaction is that there are three goals that are clearly everyone's highest that he and staff will move forward with. He said they will deal with the others in priority order— if they are on the list, maybe they don't get funding next year, but they don't disappear. Rod Visser asked for the Board to take a few minutes to reflect on the retreat and to ask themselves what went well, and what did not go so well or what they might do differently. He explained his reason for asking is that it might be useful in planning next year's retreat or future work sessions. Commissioner McKee said the opportunity to be able to rank budget goals was a good thing. Commissioner Dorosin said he thought it would be helpful to share everybody's budget goal rankings. He noted his next comment not as something that didn't go well, but as something that didn't go enough - an opportunity for them to dialogue with each other. He wanted to spend less time on budget (that can be addressed in other ways) and more time about poverty. He wanted a chance to engage and test each other's assumptions. There should be more time for dialogue, and they should be selective with regard to the time allocated for presentations. Chair Jacobs said he agreed with Commissioner Dorosin up to a point and that periodically they need to review what their goals are. He said they are operating on goals and objectives from 4-5 years ago and this Board needs the opportunity to work on those. They do not have enough informal conversation —other settings like regular meetings, public hearings, and work sessions don't lend themselves to that. He would like to get some feedback from staff on what they discussed and what the "marching orders" were. Rod Visser said he expected the minutes would record that in detail. Chair Jacobs said he wanted to see actual follow-up so they don't wonder if they accomplished anything beyond feeling good about what they said. Commissioner Rich said she wanted to make sure they have next steps listed. She feels they lacked that at the end of last year's retreat even though they had some really robust conversations. She wanted to follow through the entire year on those conversations. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Dorosin that the Board does not have a lot of interaction that helps them gel as a group. She thinks they had some good outcomes today, but there were so many topics it felt like a long work session. She feels both satisfaction and not. Commissioner Gordon said that some things went well and other things did not go so well. She said that some topics required a two-step process that involved getting information, with some time to process that information, before making a decision. They tried to do both on a lot of topics today, and in the future perhaps there could be a way to handle complex issues more effectively. She said they need to lay out the decision points before having the discussion. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker Clerk to the Board