Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-11-2014 APPROVED 4/7/2015 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONEERS WORK SESSION February 11, 2014 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Budget Work Session on Tuesday, February 11, 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: Assistant County Manager Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE ON FILE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK TO THE BOARD’S OFFICE. Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. Chair Jacobs stated that there was one addition to the agenda, which is the Interim County Manager’s recommendation that the work session on Thursday be postponed due to potentially inclement weather. This will be discussed later. 1. Potential Bond Issuance Schedule and Timeline for a November 2014 or November 2015 Bond Referendum Clarence Grier stated that during the retreat the issue regarding a bond referendum for November 2014 or November 2015 was discussed. He introduced Bob Jessup, bond council, who provided two schedules for consideration – one for November 2014 and one for November 2015. Bob Jessup reviewed the schedules, going through the required steps of the procedure. He said essentially there are three formal actions and a public hearing, and the process must be wrapped up in time for the Board of Elections to do their work to get ready for a referendum. He said the formal process can be accomplished in 60 or 75 days, but it is the part that will be put into the bond package that often takes the longest time. He said the provided schedule works on the formal process and it shows that the Board will need to take some of the formal actions before the summer break. He said Clarence Grier has discussed the timeline with the Board of Elections, and they will need the final information on the bond question by the middle of August to make their timeline for preparing the ballots. He said this means getting all the way through the public hearing before the summer break and then coming back with a mid- August meeting (which is not currently scheduled) to take any final action if the Board wants to proceed this November. This is essentially the same issue the Board will face both in November 2015. Clarence Grier said the ballot will need to be approved by August 18 and will have to go out by September 5, 2014 in order to be in compliance with the Federal regulations and meet the deadline for inclusion on the November ballot. Chair Jacobs reminded everyone that the Board does not meet between June 17 and th September 4. Commissioner Rich asked about the absentee ballots. Bob Jessup replied that there is a state law standard for absentee ballots, and the Board th of Elections needs to have the ballots out by September 5. Clarence Grier said that with the budget and the capital needs work force not yet being assigned, they do not have the components to make up the bond referendum. He said, weather permitting, there is a meeting scheduled with both school boards tomorrow to look at their capital needs assessment. He said the components of the bond have not really been discussed, and there will hopefully be a new manager soon. This manager will need to deal with a bond referendum within four months of being hired and this will require his/her full attention. James Barrett, CHCCS Board Member, said he thought a spring meeting would be the best time to bring the approved version of their capital needs plan back to the Commissioners. Commissioner Dorosin raised the question of how much specificity the Board needs from the schools for a bond referendum. Clarence Grier said the Local Government Commission (LGC) requires specification of what the bonds will be issued for. He said completion of the application will include details, including what projects the County plans to spend the money on. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the specificity would be more than “we plan to renovate dilapidated schools.” Bob Jessup said the LGC wants to see that the County has a plan that uses up all the money. He said, if it was for renovation projects and the plan was to issue $1 million dollars in bonds for school renovations, then the plan would need to indicate that there is $10 million dollars in need. Commissioner Pelissier asked how they decide how much money would go on a bond. Clarence Grier said about $100 million would go on the bond, and that is the upper limit of what the County can do. He said there is over $125 million in the CIP over the next 5 years. He said it would be hard to go beyond $100 million with the LGC. Commissioner Pelissier said this would be determined by what the County could afford versus the needs. Clarence Grier said the needs amount would probably exceed the amount the County could issue debt for. He said it would exceed the operating budget on an annual basis, and that is a concern. He said $100 million dollars is easily affordable within the current debt policy and capital plan. He said if it goes beyond that, there would be some concerns from the LGC. Commissioner McKee said his concern is not whether we need to do a bond, but the timeframe in which to do it. He said with a $100 million dollar limit (and the school needs are more than that), the County needs, and the current search for a manager, he is concerned that things would not be done right if done for 2014. Bob Jessup said that once you start the formal process, one of the first things that is done is to publish a notice that you are intending to apply to the LGC for approval. He said this is where you are setting maximum amounts, and you can refine those amounts down, but you have to set those parameters. Commissioner Price asked what this would mean for taxes. Clarence Grier said if the County had to increase taxes, it would be 3.78 cents in FY 2024, and the budget would have to grow to almost $224 million dollars in order to stay within the debt policy limit of 15%. Commissioner Dorosin said he had raised this idea at the retreat of trying to do this in 2014 instead of 2015 because of the huge difference in voter turnout. He questioned if 2014 is too soon, what the significance would be of waiting until May 2016. He said if one of the goals is to try to maximize participation, then what are the ramifications of going back six months. Bob Jessup said there are no ramifications from his perspective. He said they can choose the dates that suit the Board. He said there is a law now that a random referendum date can no longer be chosen. He said this now has to be done on an otherwise scheduled date. Clarence Grier said that the only fiscal impact he can see is what the interest rate climate is at that time. He said if you go out six months you have the potential interest rate going up six months later on. He said, outside of that, you are just pushing back the debt service and pushing the receipts of the proceeds back six months. Commissioner McKee asked, if this is pushed back to the primary of 2016 and a need arises, whether some CIP money could be moved forward or backward. Clarence Grier said this could be done. He said the Board could address this need by issuing installment financing, like what was done for Elementary #12. He said there are different options available. He suggested that the Board would want to get voter approval for these major projects. Commissioner McKee said he agrees regarding the need for voter approval. He said in his perspective, 2014 is a bit rushed, and 2015 has a problem of what else may be on the ballot in District 2 in the rural part of the county. He said 2015 only has municipal elections; and the May 2016 time frame is the time frame he would be most favorable to go with in order to have the most participation. Commissioner Gordon said she thought they were talking about is 2014 versus 2015. She thought the Board was going to try to get on the ballot as soon as they could come up with a reasonable plan. She said she would not want to delay it past November 2015, since some of these needs are important, such as schools, and affordable housing. Chair Jacobs suggested that since they are not deciding on anything tonight and since there is not a great sentiment to do it in November 2014, a task force could be convened with a plan to move forward as if it this might be on a ballot in November 2015. He suggested having this group meet and formulate recommendations, and then the Board can decide whether they want to have it on the ballot on November 2015 or 2016. He said this does not have to be decided right now. He said part of being transparent is letting that group discuss it to decide how pressing needs are. He said the school systems, the affordable housing community, and others can make their case to that group, and then the Board will make a determination as to what is the highest priority. Commissioner Price asked how soon a referendum could be put back on the ballot if it failed in 2015. Bob Jessup said there is not a strict rule outside of having a discussion with the LGC for the Board to explain why they want to put it back on the ballot so quickly. He said if the Board had a compelling reason, then it might be able to be put back in May 2015 or 2016. He said this may involve doing some scaling back and revising the project. Commissioner Price said she is skeptical about the November 2015 date because the turnout is abysmal, but May 2016 sounds good to her. Commissioner Gordon suggested that they appoint a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force to get started with trying to craft the bond referendum. She said she would like to see them agree to appoint a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force and then decide another meeting time in which to discuss this further. Clarence Grier said if the Board is not going with the November 2014 date, the meeting can be at any of the upcoming future BOCC meetings; but if they are going for November 2014, the meeting would have to be take place around the first part of April. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board tentatively agree to appoint a Capital Needs Task Force and that they bring this question about the bond referendum and how to proceed to a meeting in April so that they can make some forward progress on this. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner McKee said the April time frame is fine with him if they are looking for consensus. Commissioner Rich said she thought Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier were trying to get to the next step. She said that is something they discussed at the retreat - always leave a work session with the next step set. Chair Jacobs suggested that this item come back one of their regular agendas. He said the first step will be to agree on the bond amount. He said the Board needs to get some information from staff on how the bond task forces worked in the past. He summarized the following 5 issues in reference to a possible bond referendum: 1) amount, 2) topic areas, 3) time frames, 4) information on how it worked before, and 5) what groups are interested. He said it would also be good to get input from staff on other issues they find important. Commissioner Gordon asked that it be worded “any other parameters that staff deems important,” and that it include information about forming a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force. Chair Jacobs added those two additional items to his listing, as well as a request to staff from the following information on the past task force: who was on it, how it worked, how long it took, and how often it met. 2.Orange County Parks and Recreation Draft Master Plan 2030 Clarence Grier said that David Stancil, Director of the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) would present this item. He said the last Parks/Recreation Master Plan was in 1998, and several of the parks that they have now were purchased with the 1997 – 2001 bond referendum. David Stancil said tonight would be a sneak preview of the work that has been happening for the last 18 months. He said a number of different groups had been involved – two different sets of staff, the Parks and Recreation council and 832 citizens who responded to their different surveys. Dave Stancil presented the following PowerPoint: Why a New Master Plan ?  Existing Plan Has Served Well, But Dates to 1988  50% Increase in Population Since 1988  Changes in Community Needs and Interests  Changed Conditions, New Parks, Enhanced Plans  Funding (grant) Agencies Require Newer Plan  Still a Draft Plan  Updating of Maps  Renumbering pages, clean up links  Executive Summary  Appendices  To be Done by PH  Layout of the Draft Master Plan  Review of existing and past plans  Inventory/assessment of facilities (existing/future)  Overview of recreation programs  Driving factors – Demographics, Other  Community Needs Assessment (surveys) – 832  Relationship and ties to 2030 Comprehensive Plan  Economic, health, environmental impacts  Standards, Classifications and Service Areas  20 “Findings”  Goals, Objectives and Recommendations  Summary of Survey Results  832 surveys received  Multiple methods  Random-sample scientific survey  Online survey  Supplemental Targeted  Who Was Surveyed?  31% unincorporated OC  29% Hillsborough  27% Chapel Hill  7% - Carrboro  6% - Mebane  Summary of Survey Results  Most Used Facilities? Sportsplex – 46%  Central Rec Center – 28%  Little River Park – 19%  Eurosport Soccer Center - 19%  P&R Opportunities, Status  94% said quality opportunities provided  Facilities are safe – 94%  Well-maintained and operated – 90%  Easy to Get to – 86%  Helpful/professional staff - 94%  P&R – Benefits to Community  economic Parks and Rec programs enhance health – 93%  well-being Parks and Rec programs enhance physical and mental – 96%  reduce crime Parks and Rec programs help – 81%  Future Needs  Expand Outdoor Active Recreation – 82%  Expand Outdoor Low-Impact Recreation – 79%  Provide Indoor Athletic Complex – 64%  Expand Trail System – 89% Most Popular Programs  Youth Soccer  Youth Basketball  Open Gym  Little River Trail Run  Volleyball  Egg Hunt  Halloween Event  Fishing Rodeo  Most-Desired Future Programs  Hiking  Swimming  Walking  Yoga  Biking  Summer Camps  Gardening  Tennis  Dog Obedience Classes  Afterschool  Desired Future Facilities  Walking/Hiking Trails  Nature Trails  Swimming Pool  Greenways  Water Parks  Amphitheatre  Indoor Athletic Center  Nature Center  Playgrounds  Tennis Courts  Methods of Financing  Private/Corporate Donations – 95%  State and Federal Grants – 94%  Existing Local Taxes (non-property) – 73%  Voter-Approved Bonds – 70%  Existing Local Property Tax – 70%  User fees – 68%  Increasing Local Taxes (non-property) – 34%  Focus Groups  Discuss in More Detail Specific Topics with Stakeholders  Held February – July 2013  Facilitated Discussion of Key Issues, Interests  Soccer Facilities  Trails and Connectivity  Public Health and P&R  Park Facility Needs  Recreation Programs  Nature & Environmental Programs  County/Town Coordination  Sportsplex  The Standards Dilemma  Use of National Standards Waning  Focus Now on “Community Based Standards”  However, Population Standards Still Good “Benchmark”  Types of Park Needs in Counties is Different  Surveys and Other Documents Provide Basis for Standards – But Use Population-Based for Double-Check Summary of Findings  Drawn from Survey Responses and Interests  Focus Groups  Actions of the Last 15 Years  Goals and Objectives  Draft RECOMMENDATIONS  In Keeping with the Adopted 2030 Goals and Objectives 1. Protect/Enhance Investment in Current Parks 2. Build Planned Future Parks 3. Complete Nature Preserves / Trails 4. Structure for Multi-Partner Facility Investments 5. Create Plan for MST & Work Toward Completion 6. Build More Trails, Connect Open Spaces 7. Improve Park Access, Healthy Lifestyles Design 8. Address Programs in Areas of Identified Need, Look for Partnerships 9. Examine the Role of Community Centers Issues for Further Study Desired Level of Service?  Payment-in-Lieu System  Sportsplex and County Programs  Need for Public Pool?  Role of Community Centers  5-Year / 10-Year Updates  Artificial Turf Playing Fields  Planned Next Steps Receive Board Feedback and Comment  Hold Final Open House for Public Q&A  Public Hearing  Advisory Board Review (additional surveys?)  P&R Council Recommendation  BOCC Consideration  David Stancil said staff is interested in the Board’s thoughts regarding the study. He said they would like to get that information back as soon as possible; revise the plan; hold an open house; and invite the people who participated to come in and engage with staff about the master plan. He said the process would then be to hold a public hearing, take it out to the advisory boards for additional review and comments, possibly get some additional surveys completed, receive their Parks and Recreation Council recommendations and then bring it back to the Board. Commissioner Price asked about socio-economic data on programs. David Stancil said that information is available, but he does not have it with him tonight. He said they do provide a lot of subsidies in their programs. Commissioner Pelissier asked what the next steps would be. She said that on the one hand, the Sportsplex and the Central Recreation Center are highly used, and then there is the whole thread of people wanting hiking and nature trails. She said she is not sure what the public really wants. She questioned whether the public is looking to the County for these provisions because there are other trails like Duke Forest, Eno River, and Occoneechee, in addition to county and town parks. She said it is hard to interpret some of the results. David Stancil said there are a number of survey results that raise more questions than answers. He said he does not see the county proposing to ad hoc build something that is proposed in this. He said all of this information will need more analysis. He said as they finalize some of the nature preserves, there may be opportunities to build a couple of miles of trails. Commissioner Price asked about the information regarding the percentage of population that makes up to the towns. David Stancil said his recollection is that it is more than 39%, and the number listed is a clerical error that will be fixed. Commissioner Dorosin said he is skeptical of the high numbers of support for passive recreation. He said he thought the survey generally skews towards adults. He wanted to know if there had been any contact with the school systems and the programs that they offer. He asked if staff has looked at the County’s own recreational programs, with regard to the number of people that are turned away or over capacity. He said he felt like that inconsistency is a real one, and he thought that part of it is built into who takes part in these surveys. Chair Jacobs said he has a different take on that issue, and he would not call it passive recreation but low impact. He said one thing that is missing is how to determine the priorities. Commissioner Rich said she wanted to add something to Commissioner Dorosin's comment. She said they have an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group with elected officials from the schools, towns, and members from OWASA. She said they often talk about different programs, specifically sharing of facilities. She said she is not sure if some of the outreach is coming from that committee as well. David Stancil said that staff did make a presentation at one of the IP work group meetings. Commissioner Rich said she appreciated the report, but that there is a lot of information to digest, and she would like more time to review it. Commissioner Gordon agreed it is a great report, and she would like more time to review it as well. She would like to have a time frame to comment and submit changes. Commissioner Gordon said she did like the way the report was presented. She does not think it is inconsistent for the public to like the Sportsplex, the Central Recreation Center and also to say that they like hiking trails. She said she does not know how that translates into priorities, but it seems to her that both are valid. Commissioner Rich said she would like the proposed parks tour to be re-scheduled. David Stancil said that they would do this. Commissioner Jacobs said he missed the executive summary. He said one of the things that Dave Stancil said was that some things are ready to move forward, but there are no plans. He said there are plans for the Northeast Park and the Blackwood Park, but there is no direction right now. Chair Jacobs said he thought staff should hire the payment in lieu consultants as quickly as possible. He said the whole issue is that this was mostly put into abeyance until the County had an adopted park plan. He said this has been in abeyance almost as long as he has been a Commissioner, so the direction he is proposing is to move forward with the Bingham Township Park, which was a campaign promise of then-Commissioner Foushee when she ran for office in 2004. He said the County owns a portion of the Greene Tract that was set aside as a natural area, and he never saw it mentioned in any of their plans. He thought this should fit into their plans somewhere. Commissioner Jacobs said the issue of schools is also a complicated issue, partially because of issues regarding sharing facilities. He said this is a debate that has been on-going since he has been a Commissioner. He said the person making the decision is usually the Athletic Director at the school. He said a better mechanism is needed to make facilities more accessible, even if this means the County puts in extra money to help administer the use. He said it is also important to be sensitive to the needs of the schools. Commissioner Dorosin said he thought they needed to coordinate with the schools in trying to provide for recreation. He said he thinks it is great to get input from the school systems to incorporate in the plan. Commissioner Dorosin said he thought the priorities should be developing the parks the County already has, rather than acquiring new ones. He said the priority should be in turning gifts (public resources which belong to the people) into something the public can access and utilize. He said the first priority should be updating the plans that are in place for these parks, or finalizing them and then implementing them. David Stancil said that in a way there is a default priority system, and that is the timing and sequencing in the CIP. He said these are projects in the CIP, and they are scheduled and staggered in different ways. Commissioner Gordon said that she is not sure that this report meshes with the CIP and she questioned whether the Board should be looking at their CIP regarding phasing in the existing land that the County owns. She said it is important to reassess based on some of the feedback. David Stancil said the report does mesh and should mesh with the adopted CIP pretty well. He said there is not a sequence in the plan, although there is a sequence to the way it is laid out in the CIP. He said one of staff’s expectations is that this document will give the Board a framework as they look at the CIP later this spring to make some of those decisions. Chair Jacobs said what he has heard that the Commissioners need more information on the following:  Socio-economic data on usage  subsidies  Deadline for comments about priorities  Coordinating and soliciting comments from the school system as to what they regard as priorities  information about how the plan meshes with the CIP  payment in lieu of consultant. He suggested that staff let the Board review a draft of at least the executive summary and the responses to the Commissioners’ concerns, even if it is an informational item, before it goes to public hearing so that they have a sense of what direction they are going. David Stancil suggested submitting Board comments back to him no later than March rd 3. 3. Tower Study Clarence Grier said there have been coverage issues in the past. He noted that there is $2.5 million in the CIP through 2019 for these towers. Jim Groves said the tower study incorporated the VIPER radio system coverage, as well as the County volunteer fire department VHF paging system. He gave a briefing on study and reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Radio Communication tower and system infrastructure upgrade February 11, 2014 Please refer to the maps in your packets for better location and coverage detail Background -Project kicked off January, 2013 -Development Steps: Needs assessment with stakeholders Research Infrastructure upgrade recommendations Maps and graphics Draft report Final report -Project completed September, 2013 What is VIPER? -Voice Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders (VIPER) -Trunked 800 MHz Radio System -State owned and operated Originally developed for the Highway Patrol Centerline of road Building penetration not really considered What is VIPER? (cont.) -Orange County system is an unbalanced system 5 channel (frequency pair) on some towers 8 channel (frequency pair) on others -This can create busy “bonks” where users cannot communicate - VIPER towers located at: Eno Mountain – Hillsborough Water tower - UNC Chapel Hill Laws – Northern border of Orange/Caswell Chatham Mountain – Southern border of Orange Mebane (new) – City of Mebane Map Legend GREEN = GOOD YELLOW = FAIR RED = MARGINAL GRAY = NO COVERAGE The maps presented in the report are software models that are representative of actual real world coverage Current viper “talk-in” MAP Proposed New Tower Sites -Five (5) additional sites were selected to improve VIPER coverage within Orange County -Three (3) sites are existing, two (2) would require new construction -Number of towers was based on less than <200 ft. tower height Increasing tower height would require less tower sites Proposed New Tower Sites (cont.) -Existing Towers -Northeast – Caldwell – existing guyed tower 7444 Bill Poole Road – AT&T Wireless -South-central – Chapel Hill – existing monopole 1403 New Hope Trace – GTE Wireless Southwest – Chapel Hill – existing monopole 4900 NC 54 West – SBA Proposed New Tower Sites (cont.) -New Construction -Central – Hillsborough – New Walnut Grove Church Rd. – ATC site -Southeast – Chapel Hill – New Near University Mall Potential to move existing site from Cole Mill Rd. in Durham New “talk-in” – Portable Radio map Tower Site Considerations -Orange County Planning & Inspections advises that four (4) cell providers have made application to build towers…these new sites must also be considered before a decision is made -Modifications to the Chatham Mountain site may also help Reduce antenna from 962 ft. down to 600 ft. Less signal loss, may be able to turn up power VHF -Very High Frequency (VHF) is used to alert Fire Department and EMS pagers 800MHz technology does not support pagers without incurring significant costs -VHF and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) are used as radio back-up if VIPER fails We used these back up frequencies for a real world event several weeks ago Existing VHF Tower Sites Utilize the same towers as VIPER Eno Mountain Chatham Mountain Proposed VHF paging sites -Two (2) additional VHF paging sites were selected to improve coverage within the County Northern – Cedar Grove Fire Station 720 Hawkins Road – Existing Tower Southwest – Orange Grove Fire Station 6800 Orange Grove Road – Requires new tower Proposed VHF Sites MAP Proposed VHF Sites MAP Recap Five (5) tower sites recommended for VIPER coverage 4 existing towers 1 new tower Two (2) tower sites recommended for VHF paging coverage One (1) new tower site One (1) existing tower site Cost Example Co-location cost example (GTE Wireless) $1,000 credit application fee $2,000 structural analysis $2,000 inspection fee (if construction installation fee is waived) $1,500 Closeout documentation fee Total set up - $6,500 one time cost $2,500 rental fee, per month with 5 year term Four (4) automatic renewal 5 year terms at 3% escalation Total rent $30,000 / yr. per tower site Orange County should negotiate these costs Outcome - BOCC comments / feedback - Tower funding in March, 2014 CIP - Radio Tower/Infrastructure Report approval by BOCC Jim Groves reviewed the maps and said a lot of the issues with coverage are due to terrain and the original design of the system. He referred to the map titled New “talk-in” – Portable Radio, and he noted the concentric circles, which mark the site of the Chatham tower site. He said this indicates a shadow effect, and it indicates bad coverage. He said there is discussion and study regarding moving the tower antennae down to a lower height to fix this issue. Chair Jacobs asked if there is a number assigned to the percentage of expected improvement in coverage associated with the recommended changes. Jim Groves said he does not have that information. Chair Jacobs asked that this be provided to Board of County Commissioners if it becomes available in the future. Commissioner McKee asked for clarification about the tower height for the VHF sites. Jim Groves said if you raise the tower height here the coverage will improve. Commissioner McKee asked if the Cedar Grove and Orange Grove towers would be appropriate for increasing height. Jim Groves said these two sites were set up at less than 200 feet. Chair Jacobs said, at the time that tower height regulations were set, there was concern about bird kills with taller towers. Commissioner Rich asked about the decreased antennae height referenced earlier. Jim Groves said the Chatham Mountain antenna is almost at 1,000 feet, and it will be moved down to about 600 feet. He said these two towers are 200 feet or less. Commissioner Rich asked if this height is sufficient. Jim Groves said it can work. He said if there could be a 400 foot tower site, it might bring the need down to 2 or 3 towers instead of 5. Commissioner McKee said there had also been discussion about co-locating for better internet connectivity. Jim Groves said it may not be worth the money to add the towers. Jim Groves reviewed the costs for renting a tower, and he said another option would be for the County to build a tower and rent it. Commissioner Rich asked how much it costs to build a tower. Jim Groves said it depends on the type of tower, but the amount would be between $350,000 and $750,000. He said the VIPER equipment would put it close to $1 million. Commissioner McKee there had been a mention of looking into the 700 mhz service. Jim Groves said there have been some good conversations with Durham and other partners about this, and the concern was to make sure there would be good interoperability. He said there has been agreement to allow this. He said the FCC has to provide frequencies for these tower sites. He said there are about 40 different frequencies, and it would be possible to build a simulcast system. He said this means that all of the towers could transmit at the same time, which would help improve coverage. He said only 20 of the 40 frequencies would be needed to make this work, which would mean 15 frequencies could potentially be dedicated to emergency services. He said 5 could be designated for non-public safety uses, such as schools and public transit, and these could be borrowed by emergency services if a need arises. He said, in theory, it seems like this would be a good system, and the County has a decision to make about what direction to go. He said this system could be built for about one-third of the cost. Chair Jacobs asked if staff will come back with a recommended proposal. Jim Groves said he will be happy to put this together. Chair Jacobs said it sounds like that the 700 mhz system would be preferred by most of the people working in emergency services. He said it would be nice to know what this would cost and to see it flushed out for further consideration. Jim Groves said this current study is just to show how coverage can be improved, but it has nothing to do with building a County system or a simulcast system. He said the point is that there is an existing coverage problem, and this plan will need to be implemented in some shape or form to improve that. Commissioner Price asked about the timeline. Chair Jacobs said this was supposed to come back in March for the 800 mhz. He said it would be up to staff to determine the timing. Jim Groves said it would take a couple of months for him to put a decent proposal together. Commissioner Pelissier referred to a previous discussion of the First Net system. She asked how this will fit in. Jim Groves said N.C. probably will not see this until 2016-17, and he said First Net is just a public safety broadband that is built in partnership with private communities. He said this is a little more of a robust system, but there will be a subscriber fee to use it. He said it will give private companies incentive to build a tower. He said the VIPER system is a good play on getting ahead of this curve by helping provide more control of the system. Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of what will come back in March. Jim Groves said the current CIP has staggered amounts of half a million dollars each. He said any changes, such as building our own towers, would require modification. Commissioner Gordon asked if the future proposal that will be flushed out will mean additions to the CIP. Jim Groves said yes. Commissioner Gordon asked if this is the only item that will be brought back. Jim Groves said the proposal will provide two different options, along with the associated costs and timing, and it will be the Board’s decision. Commissioner Gordon said it would be great to have the pros and cons of each proposal. Chair Jacobs said the Board will see the 800 mhz option in their CIP discussion in March, and then there will be a presentation in two months regarding the various permutations and the possibility of the 700mhz systems. Jim Groves said this is correct. Chair Jacobs asked if there is any possibility of using the phone fee for the 700 mhz or to have the municipalities attributed to the system. Jim Groves said Chapel Hill and Carrboro are interested in partnerships. Chair Jacobs asked if this information regarding partnerships could be included in the future discussions. 4. Draft Emergency Services Strategic Plan Clarence Grier said this is more of an operational strategic plan than a capital strategic plan. Jim Groves said this plan was developed to provide some stability in the organization and to set a professional path for where things need to be. Jim Groves said this was developed with leadership, employees, and subject matter experts from other organizations, the university, and state emergency management. He said two of the big issues that were identified were: lack of communication between and among divisions, and poor work/life balance (too much overtime). Jim Groves said a big focus was to concentrate on the goals included in the Board of County Commissioners’ plan and to lend good customer support and community support to Orange County. He said the vision statement is “A Prepared, Coordinated, and Integrated Emergency Services System.” He said each division developed a mission statement in support of that vision. He noted that the graphics on page 7 include the words heard in the study, and the big words are the big concerns. He said, within the plan there are strategic goals and objectives, as well as the approach. He said this has also been taken down the task level, although that has not been included in the plan. Jim Groves said there is a lot of community support included, as well as employee support and stability to make the organization more resilient. He said within the organization, there are a lot of single points of failure, and those points can be technology, or people who have no backup. He said there is a goal of building institutional knowledge within the organization, so that if someone leaves, things can continue to move forward. Jim Groves said the last part the plan is the ETHOS, which is what drives the strategic plan and the organization. He said this shows the core values and principles. He said the new culture is to build, coach, and mentor employees. Jim Groves said the implementation will be tracked with charts that show milestones and timelines. He said this will allow progress to be clearly seen. He said this will be reviewed annually and modified every 5 years to keep it from being stagnant. He said if the Board of County Commissioners has any feedback on this draft plan, he is happy to incorporate it. Chair Jacobs expressed appreciation for the work that was put into the creation of this plan. Commissioner Price said she was really impressed with this plan. Commissioner McKee said this is the mission critical component of Orange County government. He appreciates the work has been done, and the feedback he has heard has been very positive. Commissioner Dorosin said some of these critical issues highlighted on page 4 are likely challenges for emergency organizations everywhere, and maybe there are models out there that can be used as best practice examples. He said it would be good to know practices that are already in place. Commissioner Dorosin said there are 5 divisions in the organization, and it seems that the issues identified may be different in some divisions than in others. He said it would be interesting to hear where the priorities lie. Commissioner Dorosin said this is an incredible effort, but this is very much an internally focused document. He said he is curious to know how challenges, like staffing, impact the ability to provide external services or how those services are received. Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the section on the ETHOS, and she feels this should pertain to all County employees. She said it is great to see that the plan is being developed by all staff members and not just the leadership team. Commissioner Pelissier said there is a tendency to complain about communication in most bureaucracies, and she wonders if the communication issues have actually been clearly identified. Jim Groves said mid line supervision and operations managers sometimes do not have clear direction. He said policies are sometimes implemented 4 different ways. He said the goal now is to provide more direction on intent and procedure. Jim Groves said there are two different floors in their facility and there is a perception of the top floor as a “palace.” He said one step being taken to address this is to have a Monday morning meeting to discuss what is happening in all of the divisions. Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Dorosin’s question and said there is a comprehensive assessment of the EMS and 911 recommendations. Commissioner McKee said the same “palace” perception was present with the fire department, and he encouraged staff to discuss how this was addressed. Commissioner Gordon asked about page 16 and the issue of hazardous materials traveling though the County. She asked about the use of the term “commodities.” Jim Groves said the Department of Transportation (DOT) marks trucks with one of nine different hazardous material classes. He said the flow study is critical in helping the County prepare for a potential response. Commissioner Gordon asked if these trucks travel only on interstates or also on highways. Jim Groves said these vehicles travel mostly on the interstate. He said most are caught when they are coming or going. He said gathering this information is helpful. Commissioner Gordon referred to the Fire Marshal division goals and objectives. She asked what is being done toward the goal of sustaining strong partnerships. Jim Groves said the fire marshal’s staff is up to three people now. He said these staff members are out at the fires working with the fire marshals, and this allows them to know the origins of the fires. He said staff will also meet with community groups and schools. He said schools are given safety inspections before they open for the year. He said there are also community emergency response teams who are being taught and trained to help within their communities until first responders arrive. Commissioner Gordon asked how staff interfaces with the big fire agencies in North Chatham County. Jim Groves said the best way to interface is by phone or occasional face to face visits. Commissioner Gordon asked if the fire consultations and reviews mentioned earlier are done with North Chatham too. Jim Groves said North Chatham has their own fire marshal to handle fires in Chatham County. Commissioner McKee referred to the comments regarding commodities going through Orange County. He noted that all the fire departments are trained in hazardous materials response. Commissioner Rich asked if nuclear materials go through Orange County. Jim Groves said he does not know, but he would not be surprised if it did. Commissioner Rich said this is an internal plan. She asked how many employees are under Jim Groves’ purview. Jim Groves said there are about 120 employees. Commissioner Rich asked how often the work plan template is done with this many employees. Jim Groves said with this plan, some employees do not want to be engaged in the plan, and that is fine. He said the goal is to find people who are not actively training or on call and can be engaged to help implement this. He said operations manager will be tasked with gathering updates on the goals and objectives. He said monthly updates will be given to see how this is working. Chair Jacobs said he is surprised that the weigh station does not keep track of the hazardous material. Jim Groves said the weigh stations are more concerned with enforcement of safety issues such as tires, breaks, and drivers’ schedules. He said consultants and staff could work on this, and the weigh station is a great place to do it. Chair Jacobs referred to page 14, regarding the training for external customers. He asked if there is a better way to say this, and he asked if these are the other partner entities. Jim Groves said this includes the volunteer and town fire departments. He said one of the goals is to partner with stakeholders to have a County training calendar that incorporates all of the towns. Chair Jacobs suggested using the term stakeholder instead of external customer. Chair Jacobs noted that Commissioner Dorosin has requested more information on the following three items: 1) work/life balance and how other organizations are having success addressing this issue; 2) where the priorities lie in the document; and 3) how internal challenges are reflected in service delivery. He also noted that the Board would like more information on the issue of hazardous materials. 5. County Commissioners – Boards and Commissions Assignments 2014 The following charts reflect the final selections for for boards and commissions: BOARD NAME BOCC SELECTION STATUTORY ABC Board Commissioner Dorosin Board of Health Commissioner Pelissier - Member Board of Social Commissioner ServicesMcKee– Member Citizen-Already appointed Community Oversight Commissioner Board (part of OPC McKee Community Operations Center) INTERGOVERNMENT- AL and OTHER GROUPS WITH BOCC MEMBERS Burlington/Graham Chair Jacobs- MPO Transportation Member Advisory Committee Commissioner McKee - Alternate Communities in Schools Commissioner Dorosin Community Home Trust Penny Rich- BODMember Durham-Chapel Hill-Commissioner Carrboro-Metropolitan Gordon -Member Planning Organization (MPO)- Transportation Commissioner Advisory Committee Pelissier -Alternate Durham/Chapel Commissioner Hill/Orange Work Group Rich Commissioner Gordon Durham Tech Board of Commissioner TrusteesPrice – Member Citizen already appointed Fire Chief’s Association Commissioner of Orange County McKee Healthy Carolinians Commissioner Dorosin HOME Program Review Commissioner CommitteePrice Intergovernmental Commissioner Parks Work GroupGordon-member Chair Jacobs - alternate Commissioner Price and Legislative Issues Work Group Commissioner McKee (2014) Orange County Commissioner Partnership for Young Dorosin - Member Children Research Triangle Commissioner Regional Partnership Price - Member (RTRP) Ten Year Plan to End Commissioner Homelessness Pelissier Executive Team Triangle J Council of Chair Jacobs- GovernmentsMember Commissioner Rich- Alternate Triangle Area Rural Commissioner Planning Organization Price –Member (TARPO) Transportation (Vice Chair) Advisory CommitteeCommissioner Pelissier -Alternate Triangle Transit Board Commissioner of TrusteesPelissier - Treasurer Triangle Transit Special Commissioner Tax BoardGordon – Treasurer and Commissioner Chair Pelissier- Workforce Development Nancy Coston – Board – Regional DSS Director Partnership Visitor’s Bureau Commissioner Rich – Member- Finance Officer BOARDS TO WHICH BOCC HAS ALREADY MADE APPOINTMENTS NACo Voting Delegate Commissioner Rich NCACC Voting Commissioner Delegate Pelissier SHORT TERM TASK FORCES/WORKGROUPS Alternatives to Jail 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs and Assessment Work Group Commissioner Pelissier Cedar Grove Advisory Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs and Board Meeting Commissioner Price EX-OFFICIO Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce- does not Chair Serves require a Commissioner NC DOT Quarterly Meetings Chair/Vice Chair School Collaboration Meetings Chair/Vice Chair OFFICERS NCACC Board of Directors Commissioner Price Triangle Transit Special Tax Board Commissioner Pelissier Chair and Commissioner Gordon – Treasurer Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Commissioner Pelissier – Treasurer Visitor’s Bureau Commissioner Rich – Finance Officer Boards to be decided on/chosen at future work session JOCCA- need to decide Meets Quarterly in 1 Commissioner Commissioner Price whether to continue Pittsboro at 5:30pm - Or participationCitizen Small Business Loan Meets as needed 1 Commissioner Commissioner McKee Programwhen a thoroughly (appointed 2/2013) vetted application has been received. JCPC (Orange County 1 Commissioner Commissioner Pelissier Juvenile Crime Prevention (appointed June 2013) Council) UNRBA(Upper Neuse River By-Laws state that “The Pam Hemminger – Chair Basin Association)number of Directors was appointed as a constituting the Board of citizen in November Directors shall be one (1) 2012 per full voting entity, with one (l) alternate per full Alternate- Staff member voting entity in case of the Tom Davis Director’s absence Boards – Not Meeting at this time Efland Mebane Small Not meeting at 1 Commissioner Area Plan this time. Has Implementation Focus not been Groupdisbanded Historic Rogers Road INACTIVE AT 2 Commissioners Task ForceTHIS TIME Hollow Rock Park Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Commissioner this time- Planning CommitteeGordon (2/11/14) Per conversation with Dave Stancil on 2/12—He said waiting on Pickett Road resolution but no idea when that will come. But grant received so activity will pick up in late 2014. That might trigger reconvening group - not sure. If we pull our reps, not sure what Durham would do. Maybe answer will be in new inter local to be developed later this spring. I'd suggest leaving on listing until then. Housing Bond Status: this is now defunct Program-Project and can be Review & Selection removed per Committee Tara Fikes Library Services Task Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs – this time ForceMember (2/11/14) Has not been disbanded Commissioner Rich – Member (2/11/14) Solid Waste Meets as 1 Commissioner Suspended Until further direction Management Plan needed Work Group Solid Waste Interlocal To be re- Agreement – Elected constituted at a Leaders Work Grouplater date Future selection policy issues to be decided: 1. Do officer positions get pre-empted from being part of annual selection process for boards and commissions? 2. Are member positions/terms, set by other intergovernmental boards/commissions, pre- empted from our selection process? A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adjourn the meeting at 10:11pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board