Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-08-2014 APPROVED 9/4/2014 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION APRIL 8, 2014 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier and Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) Commissioner McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04. He said Chair Jacobs will be a few minutes late. 1. Follow-up Discussion on Potential Establishment of a Women's Commission Cheryl Young said at the June 18, 2013 BOCC Meeting, Commissioner Price petitioned the Board regarding the establishment of a Women's Commission as an Orange County advisory board to be staffed by and receive technical support from the Orange County Economic Development Department. She said a draft resolution was presented. She said Commissioner Price noted that there currently was not an Orange County advisory board to address issues unique to women and to provide policy and program recommendations to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners since the former Commission for Women, established in 1978, was eliminated as an advisory board in 2010. She said the functions of the original Commission for Women (CfW) were made a responsibility of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) in 2011, and CfW as a separate entity was sunset in April 2011. Cheryl Young said the BOCC discussed the request at the October 8, 2013 work session and there were various opinions related to how to proceed and the advisability of establishing an independent group. She said there was consensus that the issue warranted further discussion. She said the possibility of having the Human Relations Commission establish a subcommittee was among the ideas discussed. She said the Human Relations Commission had discussed this matter and voted against creating a subcommittee whose sole focus is on issues of gender inequality. She said the HRC had created a subcommittee entitled Diversity Matters which will address a cornucopia of issues of inequality for different minority groups, i.e. women and persons with disabilities. She said this decision was based on the idea that if the HRC created a subcommittee that focused only on women's issues, then there would be a need to create additional subcommittees with a targeted focus on each different protected class. She said the HRC is currently working on a written report for the BOCC regarding the HRC's role in addressing women's issues. She said the manager's recommendation is that the Board receive this information and allow the HRC the additional time to explore their role in addressing women's issues, in order to give a written report to the Board at the May 20th, 2014 regular meeting. James Davis said the HRC continues to discuss the options, and this has been an ongoing topic of discussion since October 2013. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the HRC currently has any sub committees. James Davis said yes, and one of them is the Diversity Matters subcommittee, which is tasked with addressing outreach and programs that address an array of issues regarding equality. He said this group recently facilitated a discussion on inter-racial marriage, and it also was responsible for the Human Relations Forum that occurred in January. He said another subcommittee is the Building Integrated Communities committee, which addresses issues with relationships with the immigrant population. Commissioner Pelissier requested more information when this comes back in May regarding which other women's organizations the committee has contacted. Cheryl Young said she has had conversations with these groups, and she said each of them would be interested in being included in future discussions if the Board decides to re- create another Women's Commission. Chair Jacobs arrived at 7:08 pm. Commissioner Price said she is pleased that there is interest in this with the HRC, but originally when the Board worked on this there was discussion about the economic development aspect. She wondered why nothing was heard from the economic development department. She asked if this is something that the HRC wants to take on again. James Davis said the HRC does not want to focus on one particular class. He said since the HRC is charged with addressing issues of equality for all classes then they would address gender inequality as part of this sub-committee. He said the group would increase awareness and provide outreach. He said if it is a matter of addressing an issue with a finite resolution, then the committee would ask the Board to hire a consultant to find out what those issues are and help define how to address them. Commissioner Price said when she talked with women in the community they were very concerned about women in the workplace with regard to salary, promotions and the ability to get loans from banks. She suggested highlighting women that have been successful, and examining whether schools are encouraging young women to take the STEM courses. She said this is about empowerment. She said it may be good for Orange County to look at what Durham is doing, and she noted that Durham recently highlighted 30 prominent business women. Commissioner Gordon said she supports what Commissioner Price has said regarding the establishment of some type of women's group or commission. She said this is necessary, and many things have changed since the Women's Commission was eliminated and an agreement was set up with the Women's Center. She said there is no longer a separate Women's Center. She said women are not a minority, and the basis of discrimination is different from other protected classes. She said some of the things that were expectations when the group was eliminated have not been fulfilled. She said feels this needs to be taken from the HRC, and the manager and staff should come back with a proposal on what it would take to set up a separate Women's Commission. She said she would accept the recommendation that this could go under Human Rights and Relations instead of Economic Development. She would like to see staff come up with a recommendation of what resources it would take to set this up. She urged the Board to give this to staff. Commissioner porosin said he is not in favor of setting up another commission. He said the Board needs to give specific guidance to the HRC. He said the HRC has a broad charge to promote equity, but if this proposed group has a specific social justice goal or agenda for women, then that charge should be developed by the Board of County Commissioners and given to the HRC. He feels that this applies to any priority that is important to the Board. He said there needs to be a more specific charge on these issues. He said the Board needs to establish priorities for a specific time period and create a real civil rights agenda for the County. Commissioner Price said President Obama issued another executive order yesterday, dealing with pay raises for women who are contract workers for the federal government. She said this shows that the matter has not gone away, and it needs to be attacked. She said she can see this starting off as a small charge, and then it can be re-vamped once it has taken hold. Commissioner porosin said the long time staff person at HRC is retiring, and this is an opportunity to re-think how this department will work as it relates to social justice. He thinks more should be done, and the Commissioners have the responsibility to provide the direction. Commissioner Rich said she thinks it is often true that the Board discusses items without giving a clear direction. She said she is still unclear what the proposed women's group would do. She can see why the Diversity Matters group is important, but this is still too broad. She does not have a clear vision of this. She would like to talk with the Diversity Matters group as well as Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Price to help her understand this. Chair Jacobs said part of the proposal is that the Board will get a clearer proposal in May. Commissioner Rich questioned whether this is the right way to move forward, by having staff tell the Board what they think the Board wants them to do. Chair Jacobs said yes. He does not see a problem with working with an advisory board that has already put energy into exploring related issues. He said this group has made a proposal to come back to the Board, having done work before and after this meeting. Chair Jacobs said the HRC used to do an annual symposium, years ago. He said one element that has not been part of this conversation is community involvement. He could see bringing in female entrepreneurs and someone from the Compass Center to have a day with various presenters and subgroups. He said this could draw out recommendations for the County Commissioners about how to move forward to address certain issues. He said this would bring in the community engagement part, instead of just leaving this to the advisory board. Commissioner McKee said Commissioner porosin made a good point about the Board needing to be more specific in providing direction and guidance for the focus of this group. He said he is hearing that the HRC is coming back with a report, and this is an opportunity to provide information that can be incorporated into this report. He said he is suggesting this be done before the group comes back with the report. Commissioner Price said the Commission for Women used to have community events in the late eighties and nineties, and a lot of that has been lost now. She said there are a women's center and the Compass Group, so the issues of domestic violence and rape are being covered. She said the goal here was to step away from that to look at other ways that women could be empowered, looking at jobs, economic development, and salaries. She said the goal was not to make it too broad, but to start with one aspect. She said her resolution may not have been as defined as the Board would like, but it was a starting point to look at economic development. Commissioner Pelissier said overall she does not see the Board creating a new commission. She feels things can be accomplished thought the HRC sub-committee, in partnership with other organizations. She suggested a partnership with the Chamber of Commerce's Women's Entrepreneur Group. She just does not see that there is a clear mission to create a new group on this topic. Cheryl Young said the purpose of the HRC report being worked on now is to tell the Board what the group has been doing, as opposed to a plan going forward. She said this is meant to be a picture of current status and the ways they can integrate women's issues into their current groups. Commissioner porosin proposed that the Board provide a list of the issues of interest to the HRC, with a request that they come back in May with a 6 -12 month plan to do outreach around those issues. He suggested the focus should be: 1) Issues facing low income and impoverished women (a. childcare, b. job training, and c. general impediments identified in the County); 2) Issues of pay equity; and 3) Women owned businesses. He said this would be his suggestion for a 12 month agenda, and the HRC could decide where this should go. He said a specific focused direction is the key. He said the report that comes back could also detail the partnerships involved. He would like to get feedback from the community to define the issues. Commissioner Gordon suggested that HRC should go ahead and do the report, and she suggested the Board should not decide on a list of issues tonight. She said she and Commissioner Price could come up with some issues that the Board of County Commissioners can review. She does not perceive that the HRC has the time to work on the issues that are being proposed tonight, since they are under staffed and time is short. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board needs to have a clear direction. She is hearing that Commissioner Price and Commissioner Gordon are in favor of a commission, but the rest of the Board is not. She asked if Commissioner Price and Commissioner Gordon are going to work on a new commission. She supports Commissioner porosin's priorities, but they are big priorities, and she questions whether a public forum will really provide the hard data needed to know what is going on in the County. She does not want to hand out a task that is too large for an advisory board to take on. Chair Jacobs summarized that HRC will provide a status report on May 20th. He said the Board recognizes that the department is short staffed and that an advisory board is what is being requested. He said there are several proposals for what the Commissioners would like to see, and some of them overlap and some don't. He noted that some of Commissioner Dorosin's priorities would involve other departments, such as DSS. He said if the Board is going to lay out priorities for issues related to women, it may be too complex than even the HRC can do in a report. He said the goal on May 20th should be to identify the issues that are important to the Board of County Commissioners moving forward. He said once these are identified, staff can determine where these issues can be addressed and accomplished in the County government. He said the Board wants to give specific direction, and will take the next opportunity to do that. He said a decision can then be made on whether to have Commissioners partner with HRC to do this, or whether a new organization should be developed. Commissioner Price said it is important to realize that they have spoken to women in the community who were upset that the Commission for Women had been abolished. She said times have changed, and it is important to look at what is affecting the lives of women now. She said there has been concern that the proposal was too broad, so she came back with a narrower focus in her resolution regarding economic development, jobs and pay equity. She said now there is discussion of broadening this to include other issues, but the department is small, which is why the issues were initially kept narrow. She said the narrow focus was based on what the people in the community said, which she feels is as important as what the Commissioners think. She said the hope was to generate data, create awareness, and address the issue. Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Price did a great job in stating her case, but the other Commissioners have different ideas. He said if this is going to be brought before the whole Board, then it is open to everyone's ideas. He said if this is going to go forward there needs to be consensus on what the group wants to do. He said this was a great start, and there is obviously a galaxy of issues to be discussed around the original focus. He said this can start with the resolution at the next meeting and then include the other items mentioned by Commissioner porosin, which are consistent with items discussed at the retreat. He said these can be synthesized and used to give staff more direction. Commissioner Rich asked if the HRC has a poverty task force. Staff answered no. Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to clarify what she wants to do. She said she wanted to take input at this meeting. She said she does want a commission, but there is no consensus on that, so now she wants to define the issues and move forward in another direction to address this. 2. Decision Items for the Unified Animal Control Ordinance Bob Marotto reviewed the following background information: The Board most recently discussed the proposed unified animal control ordinance at its October 4, 2013 meeting. There was appreciation for the effort of Animal Services staff and the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) and the overall effort to create a more coherent and comprehensible animal control code for Orange County residents. At the same time, the Board asked staff and the ASAB to further consider several particularly challenging issues arising from the ordinance and to return to the Board with recommendations for addressing and ideally resolving these 4 issues. Bob Marotto said the recommendations included in the abstract have been compiled based on substantial consultation with Professor Aimee Wall at the School of Government. He hopes the Board will find merit in what the group has done. He said the unified ordinance is a significant step forward for Orange County and a smarter form of government to allow for meaningful collaboration among different jurisdictions around a single flexible set of rules. He said there is significant confusion over what rules apply where in the County. He said the board is aware that these four issues were not the only issues that were of concern, but these seemed to be the most vexing issues. He said he speaks for staff and the advisory board in saying that this unified ordinance is the result of a significant amount of work. He said these four issues have caused the board to pause and reflect. He hopes these issues can be resolved in order to move the whole ordinance forward. Animal Services Advisory Board Chair Michelle Walker said the board has prepared a summary and a recommendation for of each of the four issues as follows: 1. Trespass: The issue of trespass is how to define trespass since a dog that bites a person who enters the dog owner's property may not be declared a vicious animal under the proposed ordinance if the bitten person is "trespassing". 2. Watchdog: There are additional exceptions to application of a vicious animal declaration for a dog that bites a person on the dog owner's property in the circumstance where a dog is acting in a security capacity. The formulation of one of those exceptions — if the dog is being a "watch dog" — concerns the need to recognize a necessary and lawful role for a dog watching over its owner's property. 3. Administrative appeal: Some procedural issues, such as whether there should be sworn testimony, are in need of clarification; and more generally, there is the question of the best format for appeals in the absence of an established standard. 4. Livestock and Public Nuisance: The issue of whether there should be a special provision for livestock in the public nuisance provision of the ordinance is included among these issues because historically it has needed clarification. Bob Marotto said he is hoping that the Board will provide staff direction tonight, so that that steps can be taken to bring this back as a finished product. Chair Jacobs suggested an outline be given of each issue. Michelle Walker said the first issue is listed on page 7 as follows: LIVESTOCK & PUBLIC NUISANCE Affected section of proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-45. - Public nuisance. Substitute the following language into the public nuisance section (Sec. 4-45) of the proposed ordinance for (b) (6): Except in the case of domestic livestock, any animal at large off the premises of the owner or keeper. At large domestic livestock will be considered a public nuisance when it, in the judgment of the Animal Services Director, or designee, presents an immediate public danger, is destroying or damaging property, is violating property rights, or has been habitually at large. Susan Elmore said historically there has been a need to update this portion of the ordinance and this is a good time to do it. She said the ASAB has worked closely with the Agricultural Preservation Board in getting input on what their recommendation would be for this unified ordinance. She said this information is included in the abstract. Chair Jacobs asked for a brief explanation of the change. Susan Elmore said the change is that if there is livestock off of property, it is not immediately designated as a public nuisance, and the farmer is not automatically fined. She said it will instead be up to the Animal Services Director to determine if the animal presents an immediate public danger, is destroying property, violating property rights, or has been habitually at large. She said if there is a storm that takes down a fence and livestock gets loose, the farmer will not be cited or fined for that. She said, on the other hand, if the fence stays down for weeks and the animals continually leave the property, then the farmer would be fined. She said these are the kind of issues that the Animal Services director will handle. Bob Marotto said one principal difference is that there isn't presently a distinction within the ordinance of livestock versus other animals. She said the language that has been recommended gives much more detailed guidelines for decisions to be made about livestock. Commissioner McKee said this seems to be a better fix, and it makes sense to better define and highlight the differentiations. Commissioner Price asked if it makes sense to put in some kind of timeline instead of just leaving it up to Director's discretion as to how to distinguish one incident from another. She asked if there would be any legal hassle if it was just the Director's discretion. Bob Marotto said there is considerably more detail in this version than in the last version. He said you want to have the flexibility to deal with the variety of issues that arises in broad community like Orange County. He said he would defer the legal questions to the staff attorney and the County attorney. Annette Moore said the Director should have enough experience and judgment to make these decisions. She said being too specific could create more problems. Commissioner porosin said this discretion applies only to domestic livestock; he asked about a scenario where a storm hits, and a tree takes out fence, and a dog gets out and is at large. He asked if there is any discretion for that situation. Bob Marotto said there can be discretion in all circumstances, but there were multiple strong reasons why this needed to be specifically articulated for livestock. Annette Moore said when you see the designation of discretion in one place and not in another it would typically say to you that the director does not have discretion there. She said this was originally why that language was there, but there were a lot of questions about whether or not there would be discretion. She said this language could be added to other areas of the ordinance to make the discretion broader. Commissioner porosin said even with discretion, this only relates to the animal control ordinance; but if livestock gets out and destroys a neighbor's yard, the owner can still sue. Commissioner Rich asked if this discretion applies to chickens as well. She noted that a lot of people have chickens now and things can come and wreck the chicken wire. Bob Marotto said they need to have discretion to make good enforcement judgments in all areas. Michelle Walker said the next issue is the appeals process. The recommendation is outlined in the abstract as follows: APPEAL PROCESS: SCOPE AND FORM (PART I) Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. -Control of vicious animals; security dogs; Sec.4-45. - Public nuisance; Sec. 4-54. —Appeals; Sec. 4-71. —Class I kennels. 1. Limit the process of administrative appeal in the proposed ordinance to two issues: (1) potentially dangerous dog declarations under state law (such appeals are currently conducted by a committee of the ASAB) and (2) vicious animal declarations. Identify any alternative appeal mechanism for administrative actions that would be taken under the proposed ordinance, i.e., an order to remove a nuisance animal or the revocation of a kennel permit.) 2. Define the judicial processes available for the appeal of civil citations for code violations and certain administrative actions in a manner that is readily available to residents. 3. Consider in due time whether there is a need for a more general administrative appeal process to be included in the unified animal ordinance. APPEAL PROCESS: PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES (PART II) Affected section of the proposed ordinance: None 1. Animal Services staff and the County Attorney should develop procedural guidelines for any administrative appeal processes conducted under the proposed ordinance. 2. The procedural guidelines should include delineation of: a. The role of Animal Services staff b. The general structure of hearings c. The swearing in process for witnesses d. A process of indirect cross-examination 3. There should be appropriate training for ASAB members and/or others who are members of a body responsible for administrative appeals 4. Review of the procedural guidelines and proposed training should be requested from School of Government staff Michelle Walker said state statute requires that an appeal be available for any person whose dog has been declared potentially dangerous. She said the County's current ordinance also provides a provision for an animal to be declared vicious. She said in order to be declared dangerous under the state statute a dog on its owner's property has to break bones and inflict incredibly severe injury. She said the County ordinance is intended to provide for an additional designation as a vicious animal for an animal on the owner's property that does bite but does not rise to that severe level. She said this provides for a bit more enforcement ability. She said the impact of this declaration allows for designated fencing and muzzling requirements. Michelle Walker said one hole that the proposed ordinance is trying to fix is having an appeal process for the vicious animal, and they wanted to make it clear what the options were to the public. She said previously there was also a recommendation to include appeals for other types of enforcement actions, but after further reflection it was determined that the main hole in the process is for the declarations for vicious and dangerous dogs, and so this was dialed back a bit. She said the other recommendations are to provide more information to the public about alternative routes of appeal for other types of action. Bob Marotto said the administrative burden involved if the AS/ASAB were required to provide quasi-judicial appeals for all of the citations issued would present problems with carrying capacity. He said Professor Wall also said there could be liabilities from having appeals provided by quasi-judicial bodies in all circumstances. Bob Marotto said the group realizes that there is a need for some type of appeals process all for citations; however they feel it is best to find the judicial venue in which this should occur and to provide this information to residents. Commissioner porosin clarified that for dangerous dog and vicious dog citations, there will be a quasi-judicial hearing conducted by a subcommittee of the ASAB, and procedures will be the same in both designations. He asked if it would be a process similar to the Board of Adjustment. Bob Marotto said he is not familiar with the process of the Board of Adjustment, but the procedure would fit the criteria Commissioner porosin described. Commissioner porosin asked if cases can be appealed to the superior court if someone is dissatisfied. Bob Marotto said this can be done under the statute, but he is not sure about the ordinance. John Roberts said the process sounds very similar to the Board of Adjustment, with sworn witnesses and a formal process. He said he did not hear anything specific in the ordinance that outlines a 30 day period for an appeal, like the Board of Adjustment, but there are certainly other legal avenues with the court system if you have been through the process. Commissioner porosin said if state statutes provide people that opportunity, then something should be included about the right to appeal. Commissioner porosin said he agreed that people who receive citations should have a means of appeal. He said he is hearing that the ASAB has not determined what that means should be, and this is open for suggestion. Bob Marotto said that is correct. He said the recommendation would be to delineate what appeal is available in the courts. Commissioner porosin clarified that residents would get a citation from someone on staff, and this would have a fine. He suggested the option of a written appeal to a higher authority. He said if the person cited is dissatisfied with that, they would have the right to appeal to a hearing from a higher authority, such as the Board of County Commissioners or a subcommittee. Commissioner Price asked how the ordinance defines the difference between a potentially dangerous versus a vicious animal. Bob Marotto said a vicious animal is determined by a bite, regardless of the severity of the bite. He said that is not how potentially dangerous is determined under state statute. Commissioner Price asked for the definition of a non-severe bite. Bob Marotto said the language of the statute is very specific. He said if a bite does not meet the specific criteria that it resulted in broken bones, disfiguring lacerations, or required hospitalization or cosmetic surgery there are no grounds to declare the dog a potentially dangerous dog under state statute. He said this is why the designation of vicious is important. He said there are going to be many bites that occur that are less severe from a legal definition, and these bites would have no coverage without that ordinance. . Chair Jacobs said he wanted to follow up on Commissioner porosin's recommendation by suggesting that appeals could go from the ASAB to the Manager, who would make a recommendation on whether the case should go before the Board of County Commissioners as a last resort. Commissioner porosin said his suggestion was regarding the appeals for citations. He said the vicious dog citation is the one that goes through a quasi-judicial hearing. Michelle Walker pointed out that the state statute does require the County authority for animal control to designate a person or a board to be responsible for determining when a dog is potentially dangerous, and to designate a separate board to hear any appeal. Commissioner McKee referred to the top of page 9, which states that there were no strong concerns about the process being quasi-judicial. He said he had no strong concerns, but he did voice the opinion that it should be a different board. He questions the perception of this. He said the appeal of a vicious dog can be very highly charged. He still feels that appeals for a vicious dog declaration should be heard by a different board, separated from the ASAB, who issued the declaration. He said this would be a better public relations move. Chair Jacobs questioned who would board would be. Susan Elmore said currently it is three members of the ASAB. She said there was previous discussion of not having Animal Services staff involved except in more of an administrative role. She said they would not be involved in the hearing. She said the hearing would remain as it is now, with the 3 members of the subcommittee of the ASAB. She said it can be a very charged process, but so far the process has worked well in reference to vicious dog declarations. She said there have been times when the declaration has been overturned, and the process is very fair. Bob Marotto said it is very important that staff is removed from the process, with the exception of administration. He said he feels the issue is to have a fair, impartial process. He said there does need to be work and training on the procedure for the ASAB. Commissioner McKee said he does not question the fairness. His only concern is that the greater amount of separation the ASAB can have from the appeals process, the better the public perception will be. He said for him, a vicious declaration sounds more dangerous that a dangerous dog declaration. He wonders if there is a way to indicate in the wording that this is one level below the state definition. Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the clarification of the appeals process. She said she would like to know how many citations are served per year, as this information is important in considering the workload and the appeals process for discussions in the future. Commissioner Price asked about the timing and process for an appeal. She asked if the dog would be impounded. Bob Marotto said if a dog bites someone and the dog is declared a potentially dangerous dog, this declaration would be made as soon as possible in order to place restrictions on the dog. He said if there is a second bite from the same dog in violation of the restrictions on keeping that dog, the standard practice is to initially impound the dog and negotiate a written agreement with the owner. He said the agreement would stipulate the conditions under which the dog will be kept, as well as a stipulation that if these conditions are not met the dog will be surrendered to animal services. He said there are many variations that can happen in reality, but this is the process. Commissioner Price asked if there is a statute of limitations as to when you appeal. Bob Marotto said under the state statute there is a 10 day time period for the appeal, from the time of notice. He said the ordinance had suggested 10 days, but this was going to be designated "working days" to allow more time. Chair Jacobs noted the time allotted for this item and asked for more concise commentary. He noted that this item would be coming back to the Board, and he asked if the Commissioners responses were being noted. He clarified that there is no vote being taken tonight. Michelle Walker said the ASAB would like to have recommendations tonight so that the attorneys can draft language to move forward. Chair Jacobs said the Board is not voting tonight on whether they agree with one another on these issues. He said the requested information on the amount of citations could potentially have some influence on decisions regarding this process, based on staffing and time. Commissioner Price asked whether the person who was attacked would have to go to civil court if an owner successfully appealed a dangerous dog declaration down to a vicious dog declaration. Annette Moore said this is a separate process, and that person always has the opportunity to go through a civil proceeding. She said appeal is just for the declaration that limits the dog. Commissioner Gordon said she would support the idea of staff being separated from the appeal process. She does not think it is advisable for the Board of County Commissioners to be the appeals board. She said the Board of County Commissioners is a political board and this is a technical appeal. Chair Jacobs clarified that Commissioner Gordon is agreeing with Commissioner McKee that this should be a separate body for this appeals process. Commissioner Gordon said it has to be an independent body, and she is just saying it should not be the Commissioners. Annette Moore said generally in administrative law, the body that hears an appeal has some technical knowledge about the issue. She said this is why this was placed with the ASAB sub-committee, as this group has the understanding of animals that is critical to understanding what happened. Michelle Walker combined the next two issues, which involve exceptions to the declarations when a dog bites in its owner's property. These are outlined in the abstract as follows: TRESPASS Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-42. - Control of vicious animals; security dogs. 1. Develop ordinance language that defines willful trespass more explicitly according to whether there is a. Apparent consent to enter onto the property in the absence of overt or express permission to do so, i.e., the absence of express consent. b. Gross negligence on the part of the bite victim. 2. Consider further whether there can be ordinance language that discriminates between children and others for the purposes of determining whether a willful trespass has occurred and if so develop such language for Board discussion 3. Develop language for a two-step process for "non-severe bites" on the property of the dog owner under the Unified Ordinance's vicious animal provisions a. A citation for a first bite that serves to notify the owner of his or her dog's propensity without declaring the dog vicious in a manner that imposes conditions and restrictions. b. A vicious animal declaration for a bite occurring after the issuance of the citation at step one that imposes conditions and restrictions on the dog. WATCH DOG Affected section of the proposed ordinance: Sec. 4-37. - Definitions.; Sec. 4-42. - Control of vicious animals; security dogs. 1. Exclude watch dogs from the general category of security dogs in the proposed ordinance 2. Develop language to exempt a dog from being deemed vicious if the dog is being protective of person or property in circumstances in which either or both of the following apply: a. There is an absence of consent (expressed or implied) for the bite victim to have entered the property on which s/he was bitten b. The bite victim could have avoided the bite by responding to signal behaviors from the dog and removing him or herself from the property (or some portion thereof) of the owner of the biting dog. Michelle Walker said as the ordinance is currently written, it simply states "in the case of trespass." She said this can be problematic under the law because there are varying definitions of trespass. She said the proposed ordinance adds the term "willful trespass." She said this proposal attempts to strike a balance of allowing dogs to act like dogs in appropriate situations, but also protecting innocent people that come onto other people's property. She said for trespass the two main insights were regarding the issues of consent and gross negligence. She said express consent can be used to decide if someone is a trespasser, considering situations of invitation or implied consent to enter a property. She said it is difficult to write an ordinance to address every situation that may arise, and the goal was to cover as many scenarios as possible. She said this is embodied in that term "willful." She said one thought was to add language that makes it clear that the ordinance is saying willful trespass without implied consent, which might make it clear that implied consent will be considered. Michelle Walker said the other issue is watchdogs, which are a particular exception to the vicious dog declaration, but this was not clearly defined as anything other than a dog that barks or alerts. She said any dog could fit into that definition. She said the recommendation had been to eliminate that exception, as it could swallow the rule. She said the group thought it might make sense to make it explicit that the presence of a dog exhibiting watchdog-like behaviors would also go into the above consideration of whether someone was trespassing or not. She said this might go into the express or implied consent and gross negligence considerations. She said the recommendation would be that a willful trespass would be an exception, and that the presence of a dog exhibiting watchful behavior could be taken into consideration. Susan Elmore said there is a good flowchart on page 39 illustrating how to determine if a trespass was willful. Commissioner porosin said this is tremendous advance, and he suggested putting the flowchart chart in the ordinance. He thinks it is very useful and can be used to inform discretion. Commissioner Gordon said the chart is very helpful and should be used somehow. She asked how it would interact with this issue if people put up signs such as "no soliciting" or "no trespassing." Bob Marotto said this would indicate there is an absence of implied consent, and if someone entered the property, it would be willful trespassing and the dog would not be declared vicious if a bite were to occur. Michelle Walker said in the proposed ordinance there is a separate exception if a bite happens on the owner's property when signs are posted. Commissioner Gordon asked if this applies to "no soliciting." Bob Marotto said that bears on whether there is implied consent to enter the property, and it would indicate that there is not consent when people are soliciting, but it might not apply to a neighbor entering the property. Commissioner Gordon said it sounds like "no trespassing" is stronger. Commissioner Rich said this was very informative, and she feels that the board heard the Commissioner's comments and applied the fixes. Commissioner Pelissier echoed what Commissioner Rich said. She said a lot of work has gone into this and the concerns have been addressed. She also thinks the chart should go into the ordinance. Commissioner McKee said he appreciated the ASAB incorporating some of their comments and concerns. Chair Jacobs said it sounds like there is consensus on 3 of the 4 items, and there is work to be done on the appeals process. He said the Board appreciated the effort that has been put into getting this right. 3. Enerqy and Environmental Updates — CFE Renewable Enerqy Work Group; Environmental Responsibility; State of the Environment 2014 David Neal said this started when the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received a letter from NC WARN recommending Orange County form an Alternative Energy Task Force. The BOCC referred this request to the Commission for the Environment (CfE) to consider the issues and report back to the BOCC, and CfE took this and proposed a workgroup that would be focused on both efficiency and renewable energy. He applauded the County for its leadership in making its buildings more energy efficient. He said the question now is how to take the lessons learned and get them out to the community to help businesses save on their energy bills. He would like to get the Board of County Commissioners' feedback to take back to the CfE. He said the hope is to make Orange County a leader in this effort and make this an engine of economic development in the County. Commissioner Gordon applauded the efforts to attack this issue. She asked how this would work within the CfE and whether the committee would be the organizer or convener. David Neal said the CfE as a whole would be the convener to invite people for discussions and partner with local entities. He said the group would also find out if there was anything in the current policies that would impede issues. Commissioner Gordon said the present committee would act as a host and liaison to CfE. She asked in terms of staffing, whether there would be separate meetings of the work group and whether AMS could help staff it. She said the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) has a lot of work to do, and the department might not have enough staff. She thinks a coordinated effort would be helpful. She suggested a possible standing work group and trying out different scenarios. Commissioner Gordon asked Dave Stancil about the greenhouse gas emissions initiative that got pushed aside because of a lack of resources. She asked if this could somehow be folded in or taken up again. Dave Stancil said this is a related topic. He said the County did do an inventory and forecast of greenhouse gas emissions along with Chapel Hill and Carrboro several years ago. He said one of the recommendations for next steps of this group is related to encouraging energy efficiency and renewable energy in the community. He said a lot has been done in- house, but the question how is how to take this to the community in outreach. Rich Shaw said as it relates to staffing, the CfE meets every month, and he suggested that every other meeting could be used to address issues like renewable energy. David Neal said that would be a good plan so as to not overtask the staff. Commissioner Rich said one of the problems they had in Chapel Hill when promoting programs in the past was an inability to get to the people that really needed it because of the affordability of some of the fixes. She said it is important to consider that lower income families might need some funding. Chair Jacobs said when there was stimulus money, there was funding to do what Commissioner Rich is suggesting. He said there may be entities established to bring together funding for energy rehab for low income families, and he suggested this might be an avenue to follow. He said Economic Development needs to be a part of this process. He imagines there are non-profit foundations that would give grant money to incentivize businesses to be greener. He said if the County has to make an investment in this, it would have a return for the community. David Neal said a proposal was put together about two years ago to have Counties put together a rebate system to encourage residential and commercial buildings to be built more efficiently. He said there are only a couple of counties that have taken advantage of this. He said this is another way to incentivize on the efficiency side through the rebate of permitting fees. He said there was another idea for how to incentivize the use of solar. He said the Green Plus Program that came out of Chapel Hill would be another potential partner. Commissioner Pelissier emphasized the need for collaboration with other partners in the community. She said there are so many groups that are doing things and putting on presentations. She said she would welcome any suggestions the group may have for the Board of County Commissioners and for future legislative goals. Chair Jacobs asked what is needed from the Board at this point. David Neal said the group would like the blessing of the Board and any encouragement the Board can offer other volunteer boards to encourage partnership and engagement in this effort. Commissioner Price asked if work is still being done with the planning department. David Neal said he realizes that the planning board has a full work load and he does not want to overburden them, but there is a need for some way to communicate policy recommendations and suggestions. Chair Jacobs said this could come in a budget recommendation from Dave Stancil's department. He said the next way to move forward would be through the budget process and either a budget public hearing or staff's request to the manager. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on what kind of encouragement is needed. Dave Stancil said he was looking to see if the Board sees this as an area of value that is worthy of exploration. Chair Jacobs said yes, and the Board agreed. He said there is a sense of direction to work with the advisory board and then move forward with other departments or come back to the Commissioners. Dave Stancil said there is enough direction to run with this. David Neal said he thinks a pilot run is needed to get a better sense of limitations and capacity. Commissioner McKee likes the idea of a pilot run. 2. Environmental Responsibility in County Government/ Enerqy Scorecard: Dave Stancil said this is the annual update on Environmental responsibility. Dave Stancil reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Environmental Responsibility in Orange County Government Purpose: • To receive information on three related environmental and energy topics: — Commission for the Environment's proposal for a Renewable Energy Committee (RENEW) to explore renewable energy and sustainable development opportunities; — the annual Environmental Responsibility in County Government report (including the Energy Scorecard), and; — the upcoming State of the Environment 2014 report and Environmental Summit. Background: • December 2005 - Board adopted goals and policies: — Environmental Responsibility in County Government Goal — Energy, Water and Fuel Policies • February 2006 — Environmental Stewardship Action Committee (ESAC) established • November 2009/May 2010 — Environmental Responsibility Goal (ERG) status report • June 2011 —Inaugural Utility and Fuel Conservation Report • October 16, 2012 — Inaugural Environmental Responsibility Goal progress report Objectives: To: — Provide useful information to the Board as part of the budget development process — Revisit department objectives — Present Utility and Fuel Scorecard FY 13 results — Present current and future Initiatives Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) DEAPR Objectives: • Re-energize Environmental Responsibility Goal Progress • Environmental Education Efforts (internal/external) • Assess/Promote Natural Resource Conservation (water, air, land) • 10% Campaign (Local Foods) • No Net Loss of Woodlands on County Lands DEAPR Current Initiatives: • State of the Environment 2014 Report • Environmental Summit (May 31) • Orange WeIINet/ Groundwater Guardian ("GWG") • Environmental Responsibility Steering Committee • Sustainable Landscaping /Arbor Day DEAPR Results: • GWG Program — 11 th Year • GWG Green Sites — 3 Sites (parks/preserves) • Implemented: — Forest Management Policy (No Net Loss) — Landowner Conservation Planning — Forest Management Plans /Wildlife Enhancement Project • Adding 5 new wells to Orange WeIINet • Grant Funding to Relocate Eroding Trails • Stream Corridor Protection at future Northeast Park (state grant) • Earth Evening event (in conjunction with "Last Fridays") DEAPR New Initiatives: • Eno River Riparian Buffer Restoration projects (pending federal grant funding) • Renewable Energy Options for Parks • Create New Forest Management Plans • Restart "10% Campaign" (with Economic Development Commission, Cooperative Extension Service) • New Environmental Education Efforts DEAPR Horizon: • Implement Targeted Action Strategies for Environmental Responsibility Goal • Pursue Additional Groundwater Guardian "Green Site" Designations • Implement Sustainable Landscaping Policy • Complete 10% Campaign for Departments Dave Stancil said a steering committee has been formed in an effort to refocus and is working with representatives from asset management, economic development, solid waste, financial services and others to develop ideas and a ways to attack the initiatives. He said this is the 11 th year in the Groundwater Guardian (GWG) program, and there are now 3 sites in the County that have received that national recognition. He said the 10% Campaign started with the cooperative extension, and the idea is to spend 10 percent of your local food dollars on local foods. Blair Pollack reviewed the following PowerPoint slides. Solid Waste Objectives • Reduce Waste Landfilled by 61% per capita • Maximize recycling and waste reduction opportunities in Orange County • Continued exploration of alternatives to landfilling of waste • Develop revised interlocal solid waste agreement with municipalities • Continue to redevelop convenience center sites in accord with adopted plan Solid Waste Goal & Results FY 2012/13 Category State Orange Cty Reduction goal 40% 61% Reduction achieved (1991-92 baseline) -12% 58% Waste landfilled per capita (1991-92) 2,140 2,720 Waste landfilled per capita (2012-13) 1,800 1,140 Solid Waste Current Initiatives • Conversion to single stream recycling • Cart based recycling � 1/3 of rural customers - 2012-13 • Walnut Grove Ch. Rd. solid waste convenience center - 2012-13 • Concept plan for second convenience center - 2013 • Closure of lined landfill - June 30, 2013 • Municipal solid waste to Durham Transfer Station for 2013-14 • Establish additional internal goals for waste reduction/recycling for 2013 Solid Waste Future Initiatives • Urban curbside converting to roll carts in June 2014 • Next � 1/2 of current rural curbside recycling to carts in fall 2014 • Continue modernization of Solid Waste Convenience Centers: — Eubanks Road plan in progress, construction projected to begin FY 2014-15 — Walnut Grove district site expansion completed May 2014 • Continue to consider alternatives to Durham City Transfer Station • Develop Interlocal Agreement on solid waste with Towns (ongoing) • Evaluate commercial recycling expansion in 2015-16 • Develop formalized `buy recycled' policy; paper use reduction goal for County government • Achieve 61% waste reduction goal and set new higher goal. Blair Pollack said the planning for Eubanks Road is going well, and staff just received approval from the town of Chapel Hill to work though their administrative process rather than going before the council, which should accelerate things. He said to ignore the negative sign in the waste reduction. He said the waste reduction went up. He said the state had 12 percent less waste per person landfilled, which is the metric that is used. He noted that the County has much less waste then most other places in terms of waste landfilled per capita, and this includes all types of waste. Blair Pollack said he wanted to clarify the discussion about pounds recycled per capita, where the County came in sixth versus being first in waste reduction. He said departmental opinion is that measuring how much less you put in the ground is really the key measure of success, and that has been the goal. He said the pounds recycled per capita are important, but it does not capture some of the efforts. Commissioner porosin asked if there is any measure of how much of the material going into the single stream is not recyclable. Blair Pollack said there are two components to that. He said when this goes to the materials recovery center, their out throw rate is about 6 or 7 percent. He said it goes up when you switch from multiple sorted to single stream, but the increased tonnage tends to trump the increased residue. Blair Pollack said staff believes that the early adopters of the roll carts will encourage others to want them. He said staff expects to have a draft interlocal agreement with the towns in May. Wayne Fenton reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Asset Management Services Chronology: • June 2011 — Inaugural Utility and Fuel Conservation Report — Established goals for reduction of: • Energy (20% cumulative through FY15; additional 10% cumulative through FY17), • Water (5% cumulative through FY17); and • Fuel (10% cumulative through FY15; additional 5% cumulative through FY17) — Established a baseline year (FY 2010) against which progress is measured — Identified annual progress against goals • October 16, 2012 — Inaugural Environmental Responsibility Goal progress report, including second annual Utility and Fuel Conservation Report • April 8, 2014 — Second Environmental Responsibility Goal progress report, including third annual Utility and Fuel Conservation Report Background - Facilities: • Reports to date have examined energy and water use and cost for most, but not all, County owned buildings • Have included only facilities managed by Asset Management Services • Have not included: — SportsPlex; — Solid Waste facilities (enterprise fund); — Animal Services (special use facility) — Eno River Parking deck (special use facility); — Outdoor lighting, including that managed by DEAPR • AMS will update future reports to include all County energy and water use Background -Vehicles: • Reports to date have examined fuel use and cost for most, but not all, County owned vehicles and equipment • Have included only vehicles and equipment managed by Asset Management Services (AMS) • Have not included: — Solid Waste vehicles and equipment (enterprise fund) • AMS will update future reports to include all County fuel use Alan Dorman presented the following PowerPoint slides: Energy Scorecard • Energy Scorecard (chart) • Water Scorecard (chart) • Fuel Scorecard (chart) • Fuel Use: (chart) • Miles Driven: (chart) • Miles Per Gallon: (chart) Note: A new fuel management system was implemented during FY 11, providing greater data reliability Fuel Scorecard Comments: • Increased fuel use attributed to: • Increased law enforcement and emergency response vehicle miles • Driver behavior including idling, hard acceleration, hard braking, speeding • Solution: • Active vehicle replacement program; • higher fuel efficiency standards; • consistent, comprehensive, sustainable driver behavior training and education • Cost Avoided — Energy (image) • Cost Avoided —Water (image) • Cost Avoided — Fuel (image) Alan Dorman reviewed the Energy Scorecard and said the energy use per square foot has reduced 14.3 percent since the FY 2009/10 baseline year. He said this is ahead of the goal for FY 2013. He said the water reduction per square foot has reduced by 6.7 percent since FY 2009/10, to 14.87, which was ahead of the goal. He said fuel consumption and efficiency have not improved, and fuel usage has increased by 8 percent since FY 2009/10, to 260,000 gallons. He said miles per gallon have decreased by 8 percent. He said fuel usage by Emergency Services has increased by 37 percent due to the introduction of a larger ambulance platform and an increase in mileage as a result of more vehicles driving more miles. He said in the category of miles driven, the same increase occurs for Emergency Services and the Sheriff's Department, related to more vehicles on the road driving more miles. Commissioner porosin questioned why an increase in the size of the fleet would not be accounted for in the calculation. Alan Dorman said he will talk in a few minutes about some of the initiatives to address the issue, such as driver behavior and idling. Chair Jacobs noted that there was a sheriff candidate forum where it was stated that for every hour on the road, the sheriffs are idling for 15 minutes. Commissioner porosin said it is one thing if it is an issue of efficiency, but it is another issue if 911 calls are up by 50 percent. Alan Dorman said Emergency Services has had the largest drop in miles per gallon, and this is directly attributable to the larger ambulances. He reviewed the Scorecard comments slide and the solution ideas. Alan Dorman said $370,000 in energy cost has been avoided over the past 3 years through the County initiatives, and $53,000 in water usage cost has been avoided. He said the fuel cost has increased, but through targeting driving behavior staff hopes to turn this in a positive direction. Wayne Fenton reviewed the following PowerPoint slides regarding current year initiatives: Current year initiatives: • Downtown Hillsborough geo-thermal project completion — impact beginning FY 14-15 — Estimated annual reduction of� 2,025 MMBTU's — Associated annual cost avoidance of� $8,000 • Current year initiatives: • Orange Public Transportation relocated from modular office building — Cost avoidance of� $2,000 annually due to reduced electrical consumption. (estimated 50% reduction). Energy Bank: • Revolving fund for energy and water reduction projects • Annual avoided costs used to "pay back" energy bank account • Current fund: $100,000 • FY 14-15 request: $50,000 • Total fund to be capped at $150,000 • Invested funds to date: $41,220 Current year initiatives (Energy Bank): • Eno River Parking deck lighting replacement— LED fixtures — Initial investment: � $34,000 — Annual savings: � $5,000 — Estimated payback: � 5.6 years • Note: savings are calculated based on reduced wattage of lights. Concurrent with installation of LED replacement fixtures, hours of operation for lighting system were increased for security purposes. • Central Orange Senior Center solar film — heat reduction — Initial investment: � $7,200 — Annual savings: � $900 — Estimated payback: � 9 years Current year initiatives: • Insulation upgrades as part of roof replacements (F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Court Street Annex) — Costs included in overall roofing replacement project — Battle Courtroom - R-value of roof insulation increased from 18 to 30 — Court Street Annex— R-value of roof insulation increased from � 5 to 30 • Building control improvements • Asset improvements - Whitted Center door replacements • LED lighting in new BOCC meeting room at Whitted (operations to begin FY 14-15) • Employee education and outreach — "Know Your Building" (includes discussion of not using portable appliances; use of programmable stats; sustainable driving practices, etc.) Current year initiatives: Vehicle related: • Vehicle utilization monitoring and analysis (GPS trial/ demo in progress) — route planning, driver behavior • Continuing addition of more fuel efficient vehicles added to fleet FY 14-15 Planned/Proposed Initiatives • Southern Campus Master Plan Infrastructure analysis —feasibility analysis of: geo- thermal, solar thermal (hot water), solar power (photovoltaic), rain gardens/water reclamation, vehicle charging stations • "Energy Bank project contest" held in conjunction with local middle and high school science and entrepreneurial programs FY 14-15 Planned/Proposed Initiatives • Begin reporting on total County energy, water and fuel data • On-going organics management initiative analysis in conjunction with Solid Waste and DEAPR • Reclassification of vacant position within AMS as Project Manager/Sustainability Coordinator — included in FY 14-15 AMS proposed budget • Public/Private partnership "fast charge" stations for electric vehicles (to Board on 04/15/14) — Eno River Farmers' Market; Skills Development Center • Liquid propane and compressed natural gas vehicle technology evaluation • "Zip Car" (optimal vehicle utilization model) for public sector evaluation • Additional fuel efficient vehicles added to fleet • Potential mutual aid agreement for vehicle maintenance at nearest "local government" maintenance facility — fuel and time savings associated with reduced driving distance to nearest facility — especially valuable during periods of inclement weather Wayne Fenton said the relocation of Orange Public Transportation falls in line with the Board's guidance on space use to get rid of leased facilities and own facilities. Commissioner McKee asked if there has been any discussion on cross governmental cooperation on the initiative for vehicle maintenance at the nearest maintenance facility. Wayne Fenton said yes. He said local government includes the towns. He said this initiative would be especially valuable during inclement weather periods. Commissioner Gordon asked about the slide referencing the Southern Human Services Center master plan. She asked if the plan will avoid future building footprints when placing geothermal wells. She asked that this be considered when planning. Wayne Fenton said one of the beautiful parts of having this at the beginning of the process is the ability to incorporate it with overall planning. He said potential building pads can be avoided. Commissioner Gordon applauded this effort. Chair Jacobs said he is glad to see that there will be a sustainability coordinator. He said this is a great total package, but he has a few concerns. He said there are still faucets at the Central Orange Senior Center that run for 30 seconds, and he has asked about this twice before. He said this is not a way to have water efficiency. Chair Jacobs said, despite the fact that it has been stated, it still does not seem to be the County policy to avoid using Styrofoam and plastic ware. He said this is the policy, and he would like to make sure that people follow it. Chair Jacobs said he hopes to be able to talk to the new sheriff about using local foods in the jail kitchen. 3. State of the Environment 2014/ Environmental Summit Rich Shaw said this will be the 5th edition of the State of the Environment Report. He said this is being developed by the CfE with staff help. He said this will be done next month and unveiled at the environmental summit on May 30tn He said this report will outline the health of the environment with regard to air resources, water resources, and land resources. He said the format of the reports has stayed constant, but there are improvements each time. He said the summit will be held on May 31 from 9:30am-noon at the Maple View Agricultural Environmental Center. 4. Next Steps - Strateqic Communications Plan Chair Jacobs suggested that the Board ask questions about this item to the individual department heads, instead of having a presentation. Michael Talbert said on January 31, 2014 the Board held a Retreat and discussed the need for an Orange County Strategic Communications Plan. He said as he looked at plans he considered three previous failed strategic technology plans, and these were all staff generated plans. He did not think staff could do justice and bring something that would work for the entire Board. He said he put together a three step process that he hopes the Board will like. He said the Manager-appointed Communications Plan Committee met to discuss how the County could move forward with a Strategic Communications Plan and the following questions were raised: 1. What is the role of the Board of County Commissioners in developing a Strategic Communications Plan? 2. What is the purpose of the plan? 3. Is there a need for a communications team approach and, if so, would the appointees to the team be staff, or staff and elected officials? 4. Will the Plan be a county-wide plan or a plan to address communications from the Board of County Commissioners? 5. Where and how does the Public Affairs office fit into the Plan? 6. How do individual County Departments fit into the plan and how would the plan govern the role of each individual department's communications and outreach programs? He said a three phase approach is recommended to move the process of developing a Strategic Communications Plan toward to a successful conclusion. The plan is as follows: Three Phase Approach Phase One Identify and share with the Board Individual department public information strategies. Outlining the dedicated resources, communications tools, target audiences and how the department interacts with the Public Affairs Office. Phase Two Engage Rod Visser or another School of Government professional to gather internal information by interviewing the Board and County staff to present a summary to the Board at a May, 2014 work session. The summary will outline Board of Commissioner's consensus regarding a Strategic Communications Plan, target audiences, communications tools, composition and purpose of a Communications Committee. Phase Three With the assistance of Rod Visser or other School of Government professionals, draft a Strategic Communications Plan to be presented to the Board in September, 2014. Phase One & Two is estimated not to exceed $10,000. Chair Jacobs asked if Michael Talbert wants answers to all six questions tonight. Michael Talbert said the initial six questions will probably be answered through the process with Rod Visser. He thinks there are very strong opinions on the Board regarding what the plan could or should be, so coming up with consensus will require someone from the outside. Commissioner Rich said this is a good start. She asked about the different communication plans in each of the departments and asked if there is communication and overlap amongst departments. Michael Talbert said sometimes there is not a lot of coordination, and they are each doing their own thing. Commissioner Rich asked about the use of twitter sharing. Michael Talbert said there have been opportunities for tweets to be re-tweeted, and there has been some intercommunication. Lucinda Munger said this topic had come up at one time, and there was discussion about using each others' twitter feeds to reach a broader audience. She said this has come in to some play. She said her staff is seeking to work on communications on an interdepartmental level in order to understand the initiatives for each department and how to best support each other. She said this kind of sharing is mostly happening on an informal level. Commissioner Rich said that is exactly how it works, and the way to use technology to your advantage is to coordinate with other departments and between entities. She said it is a good idea to integrate this into all of the departments. Lucinda Munger said one of the questions on the manager's recommendation notes that it would be helpful to have a formal communications team. She said this team could gather on a regular basis to do this on a more formal level and share initiatives. Michael Talbert said this is evolving as the technology evolves. Carla Banks said when departments decide that they want a social media page she encourages them to like and follow all of the departments that are active on social media so that everyone is aware of each other's pages. She said the new website design will include a page that shows all of the social media accounts. Stacy Shelp is the Communications Manager from the Health Department. She said knowing your own target audience and understanding how to integrate the newer social media with traditional media is a key element. She said it helps that she and some others in the room are on the larger countywide communicators work group that also works with the municipalities. She said this support is key in situations like inclement weather or emergencies. Commissioner Price said what she does not see here are goals and objectives. She also asked about a timeline. Stacy Shelp said this depends on the department and what needs to be communicated. She said the goals can be different for each one. She said the main overall goal can be the same, but how you get there is changing so quickly and the communication differs depending on the audience. She said it is important to integrate a variety of tools. Chair Jacobs said this process is designed to get the Board to a strategic plan. Commissioner Gordon said given the time constraints, she wants to make sure some kind of blessing is given to this approach so that it can get them to a strategic plan. She said this is phase one, and for phase two she supports getting the interview process going. She hopes that staff will let the Board of County Commissioners know what the interview will consist of, in order to allow for brief feedback. Commissioner Gordon said she would also like to receive some good examples of strategic plans. She said this will allow the Board to give feedback on what they like. Commissioner Gordon said the questions and the things that have been presented are really good, but these are just examples, and she would like to see the overall objective. She would like to see a draft plan in September. Commissioner McKee said he agreed with Commissioner Gordon regarding the desire to see a draft plan in September. He said he also agrees that there needs to be coordination between the towns and the County. Chair Jacobs asked if the rest of the Board needed to see the questions before hand, and the response was no. Michael Talbert said he sees this as a free form discussion. He said these are the six obvious questions to him, but he is sure the Commissioners have other ideas or plans that they like or dislike. He said this will be the time to communicate that. Chair Jacobs said the Board seems comfortable with the process, but would like to see examples of some strategic plans. He said this will move forward with Rod Visser interviewing the Board of County Commissioners. 5. CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to go into closed session at 10:10 p.m. for the following purposes: "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5). "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." Approval of Closed Session Minutes VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to reconvene into regular session at 11: 05 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Jacobs said he would like to share briefly with the Board a conversation that he, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner porosin, John Roberts and Michael Talbert had this morning about options going forward in reference to rural curbside recycling. After two public hearings they heard that a single large rural solid waste service tax district may not be desirable for everyone. Chair Jacobs said that staff has indicated that the Board needed to approve the establishment of a solid waste service tax district, as discussed at the public hearing, by April 15, 2014 to allow the Tax Department time to establish new tax district codes for tax billing by July 1, 2014. If a Board decision to establish a solid waste service tax district is not possible by April 15, 2014, the Board would need to provide direction to staff as to the future of the rural curbside recycling program for Fiscal 2014/2015. Chair Jacobs said the manager has told them that if approved by the Board, the rural curbside recycling program for Fiscal 2014/2015 could be funded with Solid Waste Fund reserves, as long as there is a revenue source to repay Solid Waste, approximately $650,000. They did discuss one option such as a revenue source to repay Solid Waste could be the sale of the Greene Tract (60 acres), from the Solid Waste Fund to the County for a future park. Discussion ensued. Chair Jacobs said possible Rural Recycling options are below but can't be implemented by July 1, 2014: 1. A revised solid waste service tax district different than the one identified and discussed at the public hearing. 2. Multiple solid waste service tax districts, similar to fire districts, that could serve individual uniform communities that want to continue the rural curbside recycling program. 3. Multiple solid waste service tax districts combined with a rural curbside recycling subscription service (opt out) for the remaining unincorporated areas of the County and the Board could limit the fee. 4. A rural curbside recycling subscription service (opt out) for the unincorporated areas of the County. 5. Eliminate rural curbside recycling services and rely exclusively on Convenience Centers for both the collection of solid waste & recycled materials. Chair Jacobs said the Solid Waste staff will be presenting a draft Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement for discussion at the May 13, 2014 work session. He said if directed by the Board, staff could also explore rural recycling options to be presented at the May 13, 2014 work session, for implementations on July 1, 2015. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner porosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board