Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-18-2014 APPROVED 5/8/2014 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING March 18, 2014 6:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 6:00 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. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Jacobs noted that items 11-e (Commission for the Environment appointments), 11-f (Planning Board appointments), and Item 6-f (Commemorative Plaque Proof for Recently Commissioned Facilities) have been deferred. He noted the following items at the Commissioner's places: - White Sheet— - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Item 5-a — Solid Waste Service Tax District - Public Hearing - Pink Sheet - Corrections for Item 6-a - Minutes - Blue Sheet— Revisions for Item 6 e - Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Member Agencies Memorandum of Understanding Revisions - Lavender Sheet— Item 6-d- Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Receipt and Transmittal of 2014 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE 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 Pelissier petitioned, for board appointments where there are additional questions, that all applicants (including those that have applied in the past) respond to the questions. She said this will allow fair comparison. Commissioner McKee requested that the Board ask the planning staff re-visit the issue of impervious surfaces. He said there are quite a few long narrow parcels of land in the County, and the driveways use up a great deal of the impervious surface. Commissioner Dorosin noted that they Board members recently received an email with information about Building Integrated Communities, an organization dedicated to improving civic engagements and economic and educational advancement for immigrants in North Carolina. He said their grant cycle is kicking in, and there is an informational webinar tomorrow. He asked if someone from staff could do the webinar to determine whether the County should pursue a grant opportunity. Michael Talbert said he would follow up on this. Commissioner Rich petitioned that the Chapel Hill Lady Tigers, who won the state basketball championship, be recognized at a future meeting. Chair Jacobs said his petition is in response to a citizen's question regarding the possibility of Google bringing high speed internet to Orange County. He suggested that staff reach out to Google to get information to share with the public Chair Jacobs said Time Warner Cable has changed the meeting channel to 1301. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Proclamation Recognizing Chapel Hill High School's Fencing Team Winning the 2014 State Championship The Board considered a proclamation recognizing the Chapel Hill High School Fencing Team for winning the 2014 State Championship and authorizing the Chair to sign. Commissioner Rich read the following proclamation of recognition: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON CHAPEL HILL HIGH SCHOOL'S FENCING TEAM WINNING THE 2014 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, on February 8, 2014 Chapel Hill High School's Fencing Team captured the North Carolina Fencing League's State Fencing Championship; and WHEREAS, under the guidance of Coach Doug Guild, Chapel Hill High School's Fencing Team earned its second state title, also winning the trophy in 2012; and WHEREAS, Nikhil Shankar, Nathaniel Montano, laan Hufford, Ariel Hoerter and Natalie Bulick- Sullivan contributed to winning the State Championship with the support of team members Joel Anil, Jesse Chen, Hagan Connell, Johnny Huang, Alex Obringer, Jack Obringer, Brody Rich-Voorhees and Giovanni Silva; and WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Tigers brought honor upon themselves, Chapel Hill High School, the Chapel Hill / Carrboro School District and Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the Chapel Hill High School Fencing Team, for the Tigers' outstanding achievement, and their inspiration to youth across North Carolina through their dedication, teamwork, and athletic prowess. This, the 18th day of March 2014. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to approve a proclamation recognizing the Chapel Hill High School Fencing Team for winning the 2014 State Championship and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Solid Waste Service Tax District— Public Hearing The Board conducted the first of two public hearings, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 153A-302, to receive comments with regard to the proposed establishment of a Solid Waste Service Tax District in unincorporated Orange County. Chair Jacobs noted that there were lists of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) available for the public in the back of the room. He said these are based on emails from citizens.He said that the public hearing is not typically a question and answer time, though Gayle Wilson may be able to answer some general questions. He said all questions will be noted for the next public hearing and will be answered on the website prior to that. Gayle Wilson gave a brief background of the curbside recycling program. He noted that it was initiated in 1993 and funded by landfill revenue. He said a new method of funding through a rural 3-R fee was approved in 2004, with an every-other-week collection program for about 13,000 residents in the County. He said the County manager and the County attorney expressed concern regarding the statutory justification for the fee and recommended that it be eliminated in favor of other means of funding. He said the 2012 tax bill was the last time the 3-R fee was assessed, and it was $38 per year at that time. He said the Board provided interim funding from landfill reserves in 2013 and began consideration of various options to address the funding problem. He said over 50 percent of residents participated in the program. He said after considering and rejecting numerous alternatives, in December 2013 the Board indicated intent to implement a Solid Waste Service District Tax as a means to replace the lost funding. He noted the district map that shows incorporation of the existing 13,750 residents as well as an extension of service to 1,650 more residents. He noted the upcoming availability of roll carts in the fall of 2014. He said, if the service district is adopted, the estimated tax rate will be 1.5 cents per $100 assessed value. He said the Board has also discussed the possibility of an "opt-out" or "fee for service" program. He said the rate for this is difficult to assess, without knowledge of the participation. Chair Jacobs noted that the public is welcome to discuss any proposed options or funding alternatives. PUBLIC HEARING: Loren Hintz is Vice Chair of the Commission for the Environment (CfE), and he said the CfE sent the Board a resolution last month in support of the service tax district. He encouraged the Board members to review this document, as well as an attached commentary. He asked the Board to create a solid waste service tax district to support recycling in the County. He said recycling reduces solid waste, removes roadside litter, reduces energy use, and eliminates sources of air pollution. He said the cost is relatively low compared to the benefit. Barry Katz said he is a resident of Falls of New Hope. He said the curbside pickup service has been very popular in his neighborhood. He referred to a list of 120 product categories made from recycled material. He said this product list is from a staunchly conservative county with an award winning solid waste and recycling program. He read from the provided list of recycled products. He said recycling does not have to be viewed as a partisan political issue. He said everyone benefits from the re-use of home and business recovery material, and it is impossible to opt-out of the use of such items. He questioned why people should opt out of paying for them. He said regular neighborhood recycling pickup service is the best way to create and sustain this practice. He urged the County to create the solid waste district. Steve Hopper said he is from Efland, and he is opposed to the solid waste tax district. He said the provided document states that the district would be improving this service but that is a false statement. He said the County is only picking and choosing some areas. He said the method of funding is offensive to him because it is a progressive tax. He said the cost to each household should be the same, but it is not. He said it does not cost more to provide recycling for a $200,000 house than a $100,000 house. He said this does not meet the common sense test, and it sounds to him like income re-distribution. He said their local government should not be doing this. He said it costs the County the same amount to pick up his recycling as it costs to pick up his neighbors, but he has never used this service. He said he takes his recycling when he takes his garbage, as this just makes sense. He questioned whether this tax is to be made for the improvements alone or for unimproved land as well. Larry Snipes said the Board is discriminating against the residents of Orange County, as the Board is only charging this tax to part of the County. Bonnie Hauser said she is strongly committed to waste reduction. She said that Catawba County ranks first in the state for recycling, and that program is funded with fees that reward good recycling behavior with discounts and other incentives. She said the towns in Catawba control all of the curbside trash and recycling programs, and the unincorporated areas have a waste and recycling franchise that charges $25 per month for trash collection and discounts this to $19 per month for residents who also recycle. She said RFID chips are placed on recycling bins, and residents who don't use the bins once a month are charged the higher fee. She said the program is outsourced to a vendor who has no difficulty with the uncertainty of allowing residents to opt out. She said Catawba County's solution to the issue of long driveways was to ask permission from the community to use a small truck to pick up trash and recyclables from individual homes. She said this county also offers a pay as you throw system at the convenience centers, and the charge is $1.75 per bag for a 32 gallon bag of trash, while recycling is free. She said there are no other fees charged to residents for these services. She noted that Catawba County's solid waste website includes a link to the franchise agreement, which exposes all services and fees. She said there are countless examples throughout the state where counties provide curbside recycling to unincorporated areas, in some cases at no charge. She said she cannot find any county that forces its citizens to pay for convenience centers and curbside services. She believes the discussion of a service tax district is premature, and it would be more productive to begin planning for a future service with a fair and equitable fee system covering all recycling services. She encouraged the Board to levy a subscription service with an opt-out policy to fund curbside service in the short term. Jeanne Brown said she would like to discuss the following four points: 1. We can do better than a one-size-fits-all roll cart solution that meets the needs of only 57 percent of area property owners. She said County data shows the affected area has two large and disparate groups. She said 57 percent of property owners use curbside recycling at least once a month, and 43 percent find curbside recycling impractical and many of these use the convenience centers. She believes a solution can be found that is more equitable and meets the needs of more residents. 2. Changing conditions such as the new funding laws, lost revenue from the landfill and the need for new equipment offer the opportunity to re-evaluate how we do business —to benefit from economies of scale and create more tightly integrated and cost effective programs. She said this is supported by the Commission for the Environment, but it is not built into this solution. She said the County should be working more closely with the towns, which would allow this issue to be approached based on use patterns rather than jurisdiction. 3. Changing conditions also offer us a chance to look at new technologies — including the opportunities to have trash and recycling picked up at the same time. 4. More complete data and information, presented in a user-friendly way is necessary to make this a transparent process and inform members of the community about the costs, benefits and trade-offs of these decisions. Ken Robinson said he does recycle everything, and because of this he only makes one trip a month to the convenience center to take trash. He said he is hearing that the funding source is lost, and that needs to be fixed; however the focus needs to be on improving recycling and not just working to get some more money. He said he has tried curbside, and it didn't work. He does not think this is the way to go. He said help should be given to those who need it and have no alternative. He said the Board should look at ways to improve recycling and not just collect funds. He suggested a fee-for-service system, and he said he would like to see the County restore more days at the convenience center. He said if funding is needed, then a small tax should be done for all, not just for some. Jeanette O' Conner said she is in favor of the service tax district, and the successful counties use a tax such as this. She said an opt-out system tends to decrease the amount of material being recycled. She said successful counties have some sort of tax. Tracy Noonan said she is in support of recycling; however she is not in support of either of these options. She understands the subscription service has its limitations and a tax district based on tax value seems very unfair. She said a home value does not determine how much a person recycles. She would be interested in knowing the average home value in the proposed district. She said she is fine with paying a fee for a service but not a fee that is much higher than what she is paying now, with no new improvements. She feels there is a hidden increase for a lot of the residents, and she does not think this is fair. She suggested the use of a straight fee or a tiered tax system. Ed Sirkee said he believes the Board has already made up their minds to raise taxes. He said the original literature stated that the manager and attorney had concerns in 2012 that the fee was illegal. He asked why the Orange County waste control center fee is allowed, and not the 3-r fee. He asked what would be required to change the statutory requirements. He does not feel that Orange County can justify a recycling collection with a tax increase. He said a retired couple on a fixed income living in a house with a value of$280,000 would pay more than a family of 4 living in a house with a tax value of$200,000. He said this does not make any sense, and it is unjust. Teresa Edwards lives on White Cross Road, and she said this proposed system does not make sense. She said she speaks for 5 of the 6 homes in her community, and all of the residents are avid recyclers. She said it does not make sense to pay for a service that will never be used. She said the residents live on a private gravel road, and her house, which is the closest to the road, is still four-tenths of a mile from the curb. She said if she is going to put the materials in her car, she is going to take it on to the convenience center. She asked for a restoration of hours at the convenience centers. She supports recycling in Orange County, but she asked the Board not to charge those residents that will never use this service. Anita (Sue) Kinzer said there are a lot of residents who are retired and appreciate the curbside service, but the potential cost is a concern. Marsha Efland said she lives on Brookhollow Road in Elfand, and she is supportive of recycling but not of this proposed program. She said she is opposed to this tax because it taxes each parcel of land, regardless of whether there is a residence on the parcel or not. She said this is not similar to the fire tax, as the fire service can be utilized on each parcel of land that a person owns, but the recycling cannot be used. She strongly urged the Board to consider other options rather than the district tax. Ralph Teal said he lives on Stoneridge Drive in Chapel Hill. He said he recycles, and he is opposed to a one-size-fits-all tax. He said the previous fee was fine and the system should go back to something like this, or a tiered system that allows residents to pay based on what residents use. He agreed with the points made about vacant land, and he said this is just another form of tax increase. James Lea lives on Mill Creek Road and is a member of the Orange County Planning Board. He is here to oppose this proposed tax. He said he supports recycling and waste reduction, but it should not be done on the backs of citizens. He said he is less than a mile from his solid waste convenience center. He said this is a great center, and he sees no need to add a curbside service in addition to what the residents already have in the rural part of the County. He said he sees no reason to tax residents for something that is already being offered. He asked the Board of Commissioners to offer an opt-out option for residents in the northern part of rural Orange County. Hillel Koren said he would like to withdraw his comment. Peter Thorn said he lives on Butler Road, and he is generally in favor of government doing things for others that they cannot do for themselves; however he cannot support this proposed plan. He said he and his neighbors are avid recyclers, and they are better off without this new tax. He said this will only increase cost, and it will not comprehensively gather all trash and recycling together. He does not know how many households in the proposed district pay for a private solid waste collection service. He agreed with the other speakers who said the best way to improve recycling services is to open up the convenience centers for more days and hours. Rob Taylor said he is surprised that Orange County is in this place. He said there are several counties in North Carolina that are less progressive, less interested in recycling and less thoughtful about public service, and these counties somehow manage to offer a countywide curbside recycling program. He listed several of these counties. He said if the goal is to divert material from disposal, then the opt-out service has proven to be a barrier to participation. He said the most successful programs in the state make the service available automatically and provide service to every household with a bin or cart. He said he understands that the idea of a new fee is unpleasant, and many people are feeling the pinch. He said the taxpayers are paying to send waste away for disposal, and this cost will be higher if less people use curbside recycling. He said if the tax service cannot be created, he would like the Board to explore ways to make the subscription service more likely to be used, such as pay as you throw and incentivized rates. He asked the Board not to take any action that would roll back recycling in Orange County. Lynne Jaffe said she has been recycling for years and all of the residents are here tonight in service to Orange County. She said it is sad that there is a divide in the room tonight. She is a widow living on a fixed income, and she is grateful for the curbside service, but she only uses it every 6 weeks. She said this new proposal would charge her multiple times more than what she is being charged now, because she owns a lot of undeveloped land. She said this is not just. She said most people here tonight are not in favor of a tax. She wants to support recycling but not with a new tax. Ms. Samulski agreed that residents will be taxed unfairly for owning a lot of land. She does not understand the fairness of this. Doug Longman lives in the ETJ. He said many have spoken in opposition to this proposal, and he agrees with that sentiment. He said property tax values have no relationship to the usage characteristics. He does not like that it is based on home values and not on the amount of recycling you generate. He said this also bears no relation to the objective of increased recycling. He questioned why the County has not looked at fixing the legislation. James Self said he is representing Joseph Fearrington, who owns several properties in the County. He asked if information was available on the formula being proposed based on property size and value. He asked if there was any information available to explain how the Board reached that decision. John Roberts referred to the reference about legislation. He said the County did submit a bill to the local legislative delegation to attempt to obtain the appropriate authority for the fee, but the bill died in committee. He said that is why the legislation has not been fixed. Gayle Wilson said, unless the Board has specific questions, he would rather study and wait to answer the residents' questions in a systematic way. Commissioner McKee referred to the numbers Gayle Wilson gave out for the parcels and the old 3-r fee. He said the information stated did not seem to match what was on the map. Gayle Wilson said the map has the number of parcels that fall within the district, and the other numbers are service points. He said the larger number includes vacant property and unimproved land. Commissioner McKee asked if these parcels will be taxed. Gayle Wilson said yes. Commissioner McKee said one of the previous maps listed over 600 properties that were exempt from the tax under this district concept but were previously paying the 3-r fee. He asked if this is correct. Gayle Wilson said some of the 600 fall within the additional area included in the district; however half of that number are currently receiving the service and did pay the fee. Commissioner McKee asked if, under the service district, these residents will continue to get the service and will pay no tax. Gayle Wilson said the County is obligated to provide the service; however these residents are tax exempt and will not pay the tax. Commissioner McKee said this hardly seems fair, given there are some very low income residents who will be paying for the service. Commissioner Rich said there are a lot of assumptions tonight and she is unsure whether many of these are backed up by Orange County facts. She said she hopes that Gayle Wilson will be able to review the notes on this and clear up these issues before the next public hearing. Gayle Wilson asked the Commissioners to identify specific issues for response. Chair Jacobs said the public raised the question of average property value in the district. He also asked for a response regarding the cost to the County of having the convenience centers open 7 days per week. Commissioner Gordon requested that all of the questions raised by the public be answered with specifics and in a systematic format. Chair Jacobs said the last citizen asked how staff came up with the actual tax rate. He suggested the Gayle Wilson consult with the attorney or the tax administrator to find this answer. Commissioner Rich said the last gentleman was specifically asking how the city came up with the tax amount versus the rural tax amount. Gayle Wilson said he had nothing to do with any of the taxes within Chapel Hill, and the tax district only represents the unincorporated areas. Chair Jacobs said this information could still be gathered by speaking to Chapel Hill. Commissioner Price said part of the argument in favor of the tax district is that it will encourage people to recycle more, and she has some issues with this. She asked if Gayle Wilson could cite some of the research behind this statement. She feels that much of the success of the recycling program has been due to education and the conscientiousness of the residents. Gayle Wilson said staff has indicated that, between the two options of opt out versus the district tax, subscription option performs more poorly. He said there is considerable data within the state that supports this. Commissioner Price asked if the subscription programs also have an educational component. Gayle Wilson said the programs vary widely from zero education outreach to moderate amount of education. He said all of them are likely doing less than what Orange County does. Commissioner Price said she had a procedural question about the closure of the public hearing. John Roberts said this public hearing is independent from the one that is being held in Hillsborough on April 1St. He said this public hearing will be adjourned and an announcement will be made informing the public of the next public hearing on the same subject. Commissioner Price asked if residents can continue to submit written testimony. John Roberts said yes, and these will be considered at the second public hearing. Commissioner Dorosin said he has not made up his mind yet, but he has a procedural question. He asked if every parcel on the map was given notice about this public hearing. Michael Talbert said yes. Commissioner Dorosin said he has heard the critiques of a one-size-fits-all model, and he asked if the Board could do anything they wanted with solid waste service district tax map, including making it smaller and doing subscription service in the other parts. He asked if this could be done with no new notice, as long as the area was made smaller and not bigger. John Roberts said the Board can reduce the size; however it has to be a contiguous district. He said there cannot be separate pieces and modules. Commissioner Dorosin asked if it would be acceptable if the Board determined that it made more sense to do it in certain areas of the County and less sense in other areas as long as there was still a contiguous district. John Roberts said the statute does not address this, but in his opinion the Board can reduce the outlined district to any size or shape that is contiguous, as long as the residents have received their notices. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there could be additions to the list of frequently asked questions (FAQ) for the next public hearing. She said she would like to add the verbiage from John Roberts about the legislation. John Roberts clarified that he is not saying the County does not have the authority to do a fee. He said there is a question as to whether the County has the authority to levy a fee, given recent court cases. Commissioner Pelissier said she would at least like to say that there was an attempt made to get the legislation to explicitly authorize the County to charge a fee. She said she has heard a lot of concerns about property tax on land that is not developed; and she feels it is important to note that the convenience centers are also paid out of property tax on both developed and undeveloped lands. Commissioner McKee asked for information to be brought back on the valuation on the 600 plus exempt properties and how much the County is losing by these properties becoming exempt. Chair Jacobs referred to questions 17 and 18 on the FAQ list. Members of the public noted that their copy of the FAA's did not include these last two questions. Gayle Wilson said the public does not have the copy with updated questions, but the next public hearing will have the updated version. Chair Jacobs said question number 17 on the FAQ list was asked by several citizens and questioned whether a $250,000 home and a $500,000 home would pay the same property tax and whether there was a cap. He reviewed question 18, which asked for the percentage of the County's total recycling recovered by roadside pickup. Chair Jacobs said the essential answer to question 17 is no, and the answer to question 18 is 13 percent of the total recycling. A Citizen asked why some properties are tax exempt. Chair Jacobs said churches, and other 501 c3 non-profits are tax exempt and do not pay taxes anywhere in North Carolina. He said this is the main category. Chair Jacobs noted that the next public hearing would be held at 6:00 on April 1 st in Hillsborough. He said there would be more answers provided at this meeting, and he said not all of the Commissioners have made up their minds. He said the public input is valuable in making these decisions. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve items 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, and 6e on the consent agenda including the materials that go with items 6a, 6d and 6e. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes, including corrections, from February 18, 2014, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget Amendment#6 The Board will consider approving budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2013-14 for Housing, Human Rights and Community Development; Department on Aging; Health Department; and Animal Services. c. Local Bill to Amend the Method of Appointing Members of the Durham Technical Community College Board of Trustees The Board approved the submitting of a local bill amending the language in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 115D-12(a) and authorized the County Attorney to submit. d. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Receipt and Transmittal of 2014 Annual Technical Advisory Committee Report The Board received the 2014 Annual Report of the SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) and transmitted it to the SAPFO partners for comments before certification in May and authorized the Chair to sign the submittal letter. e. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Member Agencies Memorandum of Understanding Revisions The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign a final draft of an updated/revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the member agencies of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). f. Commemorative Plaque Proof for Recently Commissioned Facilities The Board was to consider approving a general commemorative plaque proof in order that the commemorative plaques can be manufactured and installed for recently commissioned County facilities. 7. Agenda a. Enterprise Scanning Project The Board considered implementing an automated solution whereby existing paper records in Emergency Services, Human Resources and Environmental Health would be scanned and indexed, allowing said images to be viewed, stored, and managed electronically and authorizing the Manager to sign. Information Technology staff person Keith Chupna said the purpose of the scanning project is to implement an automated solution whereby existing paper records in Emergency Services, Environmental Health, and Human Resources will be scanned and indexed, allowing the images to be viewed, stored, and managed electronically. He said once the documents are converted the images will be placed in a virtual filing cabinet and will be searchable by up to three different values. He said staff will be able to quickly research record based on addresses, employee number or whatever makes sense for the department. He said, unless otherwise specified, original documents, boxes, and filing cabinets will be removed from the office space and placed into storage space. He said these will be maintained per record retention statutes. He said this is also aligned with the space study recommendations outlined at the March meeting. Keith Chupna said this is a back scanning solution for active and historical records only, and it should not be considered a document management system. He said a similar system was implemented with Child Support Enforcement in 2013 using the same concept and vendor. He said the funds have been budgeted for in the information technologies capital projects, and authorization to expend those funds is being requested this evening. Commissioner Rich asked if the purpose is to scan information that has been lying around for a while in an attempt to get rid of paperwork and put it into useable files by staff. Keith Chupna said yes. He said a vendor will come in to pick up, scan and index the records, and then staff will have access to the electronic version. Commissioner Rich asked if this is just for internal staff, or if the public will be able to look at some of these records as well. Keith Chupna said these will continue to be internal documents, but requests for information will be much easier to provide. He said existing records will simply be digitized and made available to staff. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there were any plans in the future to be part of open source data. Keith Chupna said this does not fall into that. Commissioner Pelissier noted that part of the purpose of this is to free up more office space, and she would like to know how much square footage is being saved, as well as the value of the building space and utilities being saved. Commissioner Price asked if all of this would be done under HIPPA guidelines. Keith Chupna said yes. Commissioner Price asked for clarification on the timeline. Keith Chupna said each department will take about 7-8 weeks to finish their project and fully deploy. He said the contract is set for a two year period. Commissioner Price asked what takes the two years. Keith Chupna said the two years is to provide for any additional needs once the original project is complete. Commissioner Price asked if payment is done once the work is completed. She asked if this is how this is usually done. John Roberts said all contracts are paid upon submission of invoices by vendors. Commissioner Price asked if this funding be paid out in the first year, or if it will be spread out over the two years. John Roberts said he cannot answer this directly. He said whatever the invoice amounts reach within a year is what will be paid. Commissioner Price clarified that most of the work will be done in the first six months, and this will be followed by monitoring. Commissioner McKee said he was under the assumption that some paper copies need to be kept permanently. Michael Talbert said a number of paper copies will have to be kept, but these will be moved to a less expensive offsite storage site, and the digitized copy will be available. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to know the total square feet of storage space in existence right now. She questioned whether there is a department that needs more storage space. She said this would help illustrate how the reduction fits into the big picture. Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification on the timeline for this. He said the abstract says 6 months, and the contract refers to section 3, which refers to a timeline in the proposal. He said the Board did not have this proposal. John Roberts said the proposal is not in their packets because it is proprietary information, and disclosure is prohibited by statute. He said he could possibly provide a summary of the proposal. He said there are follow up steps by the vendor after the completion in each department. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see the proposal's summarization. Commissioner Price said the effective date listed for the agreement was last week. She asked if this will be adjusted or signed retroactively. John Roberts said no work has been done or will be done until this is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. He said that date can be adjusted. Commissioner Gordon summarized that time is of the essence; the contract will take 2 months per department, or approximately 6 months total for the 3 different departments; and the reason this lasts 2 years is because new departments might be added. She asked if this summary was correct. John Roberts said if other departments were added and the cost exceeds what is in this contract, it would require an amendment. Commissioner Gordon asked if it is anticipated that the cost for this service for three departments will cost $100,000; and the reason for the extension to 2 years is to allow for the addition of departments, which would only require an amendment of this amount. John Roberts said this is correct. He said the proposal could also call for follow up services. Commissioner Gordon said the timeframe is challenging to figure out, and she would like to see the summary requested by Commissioner Dorosin. Chair Jacobs noted that these are departments with privileged information, and their records should not be subject to public consumption. John Roberts said former manager Frank Clifton suggested in the past that the County have some sort of record dump where the public could come in and peruse all of the County's records. John Roberts said he was opposed to this, as it would require the review of millions of documents and emails to select and exclude confidential and privileged information. Chair Jacobs said he sent an article to Board of County Commissioners about the increased resistance of local and state governments to provide information to the public. He said he accepts that these are largely records that statutorily should not be available to the public; however, he would like to err on the side of openness moving forward. Commissioner Rich said she agrees. She said there are other states involved in open data processes, and she would like to see the County think of some sort of open source system. Commissioner Pelissier suggested the flagging of items that could be open to the public. Commissioner Dorosin said even if records are subject to confidentiality standards, he did not see that in the contract with the vendor. John Roberts said the vendors are covered by the general laws. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve and authorize the Manager to sign the attached contract and any amendments as necessary. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said, for those on the Strategic Communications Work Group, he heard 3 Commissioners express the desire for a proactive plan to work toward an open data plan to strategize documents and make them available. He said the Board will defer conversations about this until hearing the recommendations of the group that is working on strategic communications. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to make it clear that the Commissioners have asked for information, and she would like consensus that staff will provide that information. Commissioner Rich said the strategic communications group was the retreat group. She asked if this group needs to be made official, and she said there was discussion about staff members from different departments joining this group. Michael Talbert said this process has begun internally with the team members outlined by the example. He said all of the departments are doing their own information distribution, and the team is working on a presentation for the Board on April 8th. He said this is being moved forward as a staff initiative. Commissioner Rich said she feels the Board needs to designate a specific committee at some point. Chair Jacobs said this can be incorporated into the process. 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Arts Commission —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Arts Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint the following to the Arts Commission: • Appointment to a first full term (Position #3) for Mr. Brian Finch • Appointment to a second full term (Position #4) for Mr. Geoffrey Hathaway • Appointment to a first full term (Position #10) for Ms. Devra Thomas • Appointment to a first full term (Position #11) for Mrs. Ashley Nissler POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE 3 Mr. Brian Finch At-Large 03/31/2017 4 Mr. Geoffrey Hathaway At-Large 03/31/2017 10 Ms. Devra Thomas At-Large 03/31/2017 11 Mrs. Ashley Nissler At-Large 03/31/2017 VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to nominate Allison Reavis to position 14 ( At-Large) VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner McKee noted that he opposes the process of nominations being made from the floor rather than allowing time to look over the nominees. b. Board of Health —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint the following to the Board of Health: • Appointment to a first partial term (position #8) for Mr. Nick Galvez. • Appointment to a first full term (Position #9) for Dr. Sam Lasris. POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE 8 Mr. Nick Galvez At-Large 06/30/2015 9 Dr. Sam Lasris Dentist 06/30/2016 VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee —Appointment The Board considered an appointment to the Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint the following to the Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee: • Appointment to a second full term (Position #1) for Ms. Jeroloman. POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE 1 Ms. Amy Jeroloman Northern Transition Area 01/30/2017 VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Dorosin noted that there are only 3 people on this board, and he read that this board was supposed to have 5 people. He said he would like to see a full listing of board members in the packets for these other governmental bodies as they go forward. Chair Jacobs said he agrees, and he feels this board itself needs to be examined at some point, in relation to the possibility of the Hillsborough ETJ area going forward. Commissioner Gordon said it is a good idea going forward, when a subset is appointed, that separate sheets be provided with lists of the subset, as well as a list for whole board. d. Carrboro Planning Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Carrboro Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint the following to the Carrboro Planning Board: • Appointment to an additional full term (Position #2) for Ms. Susan Poulton. POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE 2 Ms. Susan Poulton Carrboro Planning Board 02/28/2017 VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Commission for the Environment—Appointments The Board was to consider making appointments to the Commission for the Environment. DEFERRED f. Orange County Planning Board —Appointments The Board was to consider making appointments to the Orange County Planning Board. DEFERRED 12. Board Comments Commissioner Price said she participated in a Meals-on-Wheels event, and it was a wonderful experience. Commissioner Dorosin said he was at the Healthy Carolinians meeting this week. He said he learned about two interesting issues. He said he learned that accidental poisoning is the second leading cause of death in North Carolina and in Orange County. He said there is a lot of work being done by the Health Department related to this. He said he also learned that there are some pretty grim statistics about the children in Orange County who are without health insurance. He said he will be bringing this information to the Board. Commissioner McKee — none Commissioner Pelissier said she and Dr. Bridger are going to visit the early head start health care sites in the area tomorrow morning. She said the jail alternatives workgroup met this morning and reviewed a partial draft of the report. She said headway is being made, but there is more to do. Commissioner Gordon said at the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting, work was done to finish the memorandum of understanding (MOU). She said the chair and vice chair reported on a meeting with Chatham County. She said Chatham County had concerns, but had agreed to sign the agreement. Commissioner Rich said she is also going to work with Meals-on-Wheels this week. She said tomorrow morning is the Visitors Bureau meeting. She said tourism is picking up in Orange County, and she will provide numbers soon. She said much of this is due to both high school and college sports. Commissioner Price said she attended the NCACC meeting and it was mentioned that they may be entering into some hard times with N.0 Fast and Medicaid. She said the state is blaming the counties for the problems. Chair Jacobs said he and Commissioner Pelissier attended the Project EngAGE event yesterday and gave them an overview of the Board of County Commissioners. He said information was shared at the jail alternatives meeting showing that the number of mentally ill people imprisoned in 2014 is at almost the same level as in the 1800s. 13. Information Items • March 6, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Description of Meetings with Waste Zero and Green Stream • Waste Reduction Rate for FY 12-13 • Follow up to BOCC Questions on Emergency Services Strategic Plan 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 8:09 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board