Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-03-2012 APPROVED 8/21/2012 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION May 3, 2012 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the West Campus Office Building, West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) ADDITION TO THE AGENDA: A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to go into closed session for the purposes of: Per NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3) to consult with an attorney regarding the ongoing case of Orange County vs. Eno River Parking Deck; and PER N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)] "To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body, " VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Orange County Transit Plan — Current Status and Discussion a) Review of Durham/Orange DRAFT Cost Share Agreement Chair Pelissier said that Planning Director Craig Benedict asked for direction to flesh out details of the bus plan that would be part of the package for May 15th. She suggested discussing the draft cost-share agreement, which will be on the agenda for May 15th. The Durham Board of Commissioners has this on a work session this Monday. John Roberts said that Durham County added several modifications to the cost-share plan. Mainly what Durham County changed was to add Durham County to the clause, #5 on page 2. Nothing was changed that benefited Orange County. Commissioner Gordon suggested clarifying where the revenues would come from and specifying the exact fees. John Roberts said that this is referencing Orange County and Durham County and Triangle Transit so he cannot say what Durham County's registration fee is. Craig Benedict said that the other entities have the same authority as Orange County does. Patrick McDonough suggested checking with Durham County regarding the fees they may have. Frank Clifton said to add the fees that are authorized by House Bill 148. Regarding Commissioner Yuhasz' question about Orange County's share, John Roberts said that the change has already been made to reflect this. He read his version: "Durham's share, including federal, state, and local transit tax proceeds, and this total shall be 1.061.8 billion and Orange's share, including federal, state, and local transit tax proceeds, and this total shall be $316.2 million." Commissioner Hemminger made reference to #13 and why this would be modified only once every three years. John Roberts said that this was the suggestion, but it may be changed. The three attorneys agreed to this. Commissioner Hemminger made reference to #15 and said that the County Manager of Orange County should be added to this statement. Frank Clifton suggested for section 3 to include that it is anticipated that the federal share is 50%, the state share is 25%, and the remaining 25% will be split as per the percentages with Durham and Orange Counties. Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5, #11 and the terms of agreement, 4th line from the bottom, and she suggested adding "shall renegotiate this cost-sharing agreement." She asked about the federal monies and whether the receipt of the federal funds should be in the implementation agreements regarding timelines, etc. John Roberts said that he did not know when they would get the federal funds. Commissioner Gordon asked when they would know that the federal funds would not be coming through. Patrick McDonough said that it should not be thought of as in years, but project milestones. He said that the federal government would rather remove projects they think will fail much earlier in the process than they used to do. Commissioner Gordon said that this language does not address the project not happening at all. Chair Pelissier said that she is fine with the way it is worded. The Board agreed by consensus to leave the wording as is. Commissioner McKee made reference to #8 on page 5 and said that he is fuzzy on where they would be supplanting a route. He said that if Chapel Hill Transit discontinues a route and then waits 6 months to a year to reinstitute a new route with changes, he would like to know if this constitutes a supplementation. John Roberts said that staff is looking to add more on this topic in this agreement. Commissioner McKee said that he would prefer that more information be added. Frank Clifton said that this is a cost sharing agreement and many of these suggestions would be better addressed in the implementation agreement. Commissioner Gordon said that she would prefer to have separate agreements, with one agreement for Orange County and Triangle Transit, and then one for Durham County and Triangle Transit. b) Discussion on Public Input Received on Orange County Transit Plan Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners have at their places a summary of comments made at the public input sessions on transit. She said that the comments were very similar to what was heard at the public hearing. Chair Pelissier said that Craig Benedict would like some direction on how to outline the bus component of the transit plan that will come before the Board on May 15tH Craig Benedict said that he is suggesting turning the OPT hours to the $97/hour like all of the other areas, acknowledging that this was the model for the original 50,400 hours. This will have to be decreased to 40,000 hours. Chair Pelissier said that they never had an opportunity to discuss with the partners such a change. Commissioner Foushee said that there was one meeting where the $58/hour was discussed as opposed to the $97/hour. It started out as $97/hour but was adjusted to the numbers provided by OPT, which was $58/hour. Chair Pelissier said that since there is the merger study with OPT and Chapel Hill Transit, etc., the transit plan should be the starting point for the first few years. The implementation agreement could include that, as the costs change, the hours are reviewed with the regional routes. The Board agreed. Commissioner McKee said that whatever route they use, he does not want to see the rural routes get penalized. Commissioner Yuhasz said that they need to have the cost to serve as being the same all across the whole system. In that case, $58/hour does not make sense. Commissioner Gordon said that part of the trouble tonight is that there are handouts the Board had not seen until tonight. She suggested putting this on a future agenda. She made reference to page 13 and said that it uses the year 2045, but all other documents say 2035. She asked if this was correct. Patrick McDonough said that they prepared an updated version and used the date 2045. Commissioner Gordon suggested going back to 2035 because everything else is calculated using this year. Patrick McDonough said that he could go back to 2035. Chair Pelissier said that the distribution of vehicle tag dollars has never been clarified. The question is how to allocate those hours. The legislation said that it should be distributed by population served. All agreed. At this point, there was a webinar and there was no recording. 2. Paperless Agenda Process Options The Board went into another room (IT Computer Training Room) to attend a webinar which were vendor-led demonstrations of two potential paperless agenda solutions. Two companies (Granicus and Sire) made presentation on automated agendas. The Granicus solution would cost $31,000 with ongoing annual costs of$12,000/year. The Sire Solution would cost $86, 272 including hardware with ongoing annual costs of$6, 280/year. Each company presented its product to the Board, with a question and answer period after each presentation. It was discussed that automation efficiencies are gained largely through the development of strict chain of approvals tied to schedules, and for staff adhering to the same. Staff pointed out that while agenda automation software has mechanisms for circumventing these schedules and approval chains, automation gains are quickly lost through such actions. Staff also pointed out that it is of critical importance to the success of these systems that County staff and Board members assess their willingness to adhere to the schedules and disciplines enforce by these systems; otherwise the third option, the low cost solution offered by IT staff which was presented, may be the preferable option. The internal option would cost $700/board member for iPads or equivalent tablets; and, high volume printers would be made available for those board members wishing to print out their full agenda packets from home at a cost of$1450/Board member. After discussion, it was concluded that this internal option may be the best option for all and thus, staff would pursue this option. CLOSED SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to go into closed session at 9:55 p.m. for the purposes of: Per NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3) to consult with an attorney regarding the ongoing case of Orange County vs. Eno River Parking Deck; and PER N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(4)] "To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of business in the area served by this body. " VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee to reconvene into regular session at 10:25 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board