HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-10-2015 1
I APPROVED 10/20/2015
2 MINUTES
3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 WORK SESSION
5 September 10, 2015
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday,
9 September 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
12 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager
16 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
17 appropriately below)
18
19 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
20 Chair McKee asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of 9/11.
21
22 1. Additional Discussion Regarding a November 2016 Bond Referendum
23 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
24 -White pages for Item 1-A: Revised dates on attached proposed bond schedule memorandum,
25 Attachment A
26 -White pages for Item 1-B: Discussion materials from Davenport and Company
27 Chair McKee said the first time the Board discussed a bond was in 2013. He said this
28 would be a continuing discussion tonight.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said staff invited Davenport and Company, the County's financial
30 advisors, to review the debt capacity, as it related to the bond.
31 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, referred to Item 1-
32 Attachment A in their packet, which is the schedule for a 2016 bond. He noted the corrected
33 dates, highlighted in yellow on page 4.
34 Paul Laughton said Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, is also here tonight. The memo bond
35 detail has been updated to reflect the November 2016 bond.
36
37 To: Orange County Officials
38
39 Date: September 2, 2015
40
41 Regarding Required Procedures and Possible Schedule for
42 General Obligation Bond Referendum
43
44 From: Sanford Holshouser LLP
45 -- Robert M. Jessup Jr.
46
47 This memorandum describes the steps required for Orange County to conduct a general
48 obligation bond referendum on November 8, 2016, and sets out a proposed schedule. Here are
49 the required steps and suggested dates for action:
2
1
2 1. Determine tentative plan for bond purposes and amounts. Although Step 5
3 provides for the first formal Board action to determine what will be presented to the voters, the
4 bond program needs to be substantially worked out before we begin the formal process. In
5 addition, the plan for what projects are to be included in the bond package is something that
6 LGC representatives will want to discuss in detail with County representatives as part of the
7 meeting described in the next step.
8
9 Each separate general purpose for bonds has to be the subject of a separate ballot
10 question. The statutes assume that each question put to voters will propose a dollar amount for
11 a separate generic purpose, such as paying "capital costs of school facilities."Although the
12 statutes allow the purpose to be stated with more specificity, it is highly recommended that the
13 purpose in the ballot question be left as general as possible. The more specific plans underlying
14 the planning for the bond issue do not legally bind the County to a particular future plan of action
15 in the issuance of the bonds or construction of specified facilities.
16
17 2. Meet with LGC staff.The County should arrange a meeting with LGC staff about
18 the proposed referendum as soon as convenient after the Board has settled informally on a
19 referendum plan.
20
21 3. Give informal notice to the County Board of Elections. Because the Board of
22 Elections will need to coordinate its own procedures for the bond referendum, it would help the
23 Board of Elections to receive a phone call to inform the Board of the County's plans, even if the
24 plans are still subject to change. We want to be sure that our schedule works with the Board's
25 schedule -- not only in terms of legal requirements but also in terms of practical matters such as
26 ballot printing deadlines, especially now that absentee balloting begins in September.
27
28 4. Obtain School Board Resolutions. If any of the bonds will be proposed for
29 school purposes, the statutes contemplate that the affected school boards should provide a
30 formal referendum request to the Commissioners. This request usually proposes a maximum
31 amount of bonds to be considered at the referendum. This schedule assumes that each school
32 board could adopt an appropriate resolution by the end of March.
33
34 5. Adopt "Findings" Resolution. As part of the application process, the LGC
35 wants to see a statement describing why the proposed projects and bonds are necessary and
36 desirable. This resolution will also state an estimated tax rate impact of the borrowing. This
37 resolution could be adopted at a County Board meeting in April. This resolution will also
38 authorize the publication of the "Notice of Intent" described in Step 6.
39
40 6. Publish Notice of Intent To File Application. The County must publish a
41 notice of its intent to file an application for the LGC's approval of the proposed bonds. The
42 notice must be published at least 10 days before filing the application. The notice needs to be
43 published as soon as possible after the Board adopts the findings resolution described in Step
44 5.
45 The own words resolution and the Notice of Intent establish the maximum amount of
46 bonds that can be proposed at the referendum for each of the specified purposes. From this
47 point, we can decrease the amount of bonds or eliminate purposes, but we can increase an
48 amount or add a purpose only by re-starting the authorization process.
49
50 7. Make Legislative Committee 45-day filing. If the bond program will include
3
1 purposes beyond schools, the law requires that the County file a notice of the proposed
2 borrowing with a legislative committee at least 45 days before the LGC considers your
3 application. We can make this filing promptly after the action in Step 5. There's no requirement
4 for this Committee to approve anything or take any other action; there's simply a requirement to
5 file a notice.
6
7 8. Prepare statement of debt and statement of estimated interest. The debt
8 statement sets out details of the County's outstanding debt. This document will be similar, not
9 quite identical, to a debt statement that appears in the LGC application. The statement of
10 estimated interest states the County's good-faith, non-binding calculation of the total amount of
11 interest to be paid on the bonds, if issued, over the term of the bonds. These statements will be
12 prepared as we are preparing the LGC application and the Bond Order documents. Information
13 from these statements will be included in some of the public notices related to the bond
14 referendum.
15
16 9. File LGC Application. As stated above, this cannot happen until at least 10
17 days have elapsed since the publication of the notice of intent. The application needs to be filed
18 and formally accepted by the LGC before we have the County Board take its next steps as
19 described in Step 10.
20
21 Although we have to submit the LGC application as part of the referendum process, it is
22 not necessary to receive LGC approval until we are ready to proceed with the actual sale of
23 bonds, which of course will be after the referendum. The LGC may or may not act on the
24 application prior to the referendum, although the current LGC practice is in fact to consider
25 applications as they are received (instead of waiting for the time of a bond issuance).
26
27 10. Introduce Bond Orders; Set public hearing. After the County files its
28 application, the Board needs to introduce the "Bond Orders" and set a date for the required
29 public hearing. We can take these actions at any time after the LGC accepts the application
30 (even the same day). Our schedule shows these steps occurring at a Board meeting in May.
31
32 The "Bond Order"is the basic authorization for bonds approved by the County Board.
33 The statutes provide for the format and most of the text of a bond order, the bond order is a
34 short, general statement of the Board's determination to proceed. Each of the separate generic
35 purposes for which bonds are to be proposed will be the subject of a separate bond order. The
36 details of an actual bond issue are further approved by the Board at the time of a bond issue.
37
38 11. Publish Notice of Public Hearing. We need to publish notice of the required
39 public hearing at least six days prior to the hearing.
40
41 12. Hold Public Hearing; Adopt Bond Order; Set Ballot Question and
42 Referendum Date. After holding a public hearing, the Board needs to adopt the Bond Orders
43 and adopt a resolution that formally sets the ballot questions and the date for the referendum.
44 Our schedule shows these steps occurring at a County Board meeting in June (or across
45 multiple June meetings, if the Board wanted to separate the public hearings from final Board
46 action across more than one meeting). The Board Clerk must then send a copy of the resolution
47 setting the date and the ballot question to the County Board of Elections within three days after
48 the Board meeting.
49
50 The adoption of the bond orders establishes the final amount of bonds that will go before
51 the voters for each of the stated purposes.
4
1
2 13. Publish Bond Order as Adopted. This should be done as soon as possible
3 after the Bond Order is adopted. There is no particular deadline for publishing this notice, but
4 the notice starts a 30-day period for court challenges to the authorization process that must
5 lapse before any bonds can be issued.
6
7 14. Publish Notice of Bond Referendum. This notice must be published twice,
8 once not less than 14 days and once not less than 7 days before the close of voter registration.
9 State law permits registration until the 25th day prior to the election date. That puts the date
10 registration closes at October 14 for a referendum on November 8. The first publication, then,
11 needs to be at least 14 days earlier, or on or before September 30, and the second publication
12 no more than one week later (by October 7). 1 would certainly encourage you, however, to plan
13 to publish at least a week before the final legal date, in order to leave time to re-publish in case
14 of any problems with publication.
15
16
17 1 have attached a schedule in table form for a referendum in November 2016. This table
18 summarizes the steps that have been described in more detail above.
19
20 Issuing bonds after the referendum. Once the voters have approved the bonds, you
21 have a minimum of 90 to 120 days to get through the process to actually issue bonds. The
22 County Board must adopt a resolution to formally approve the election results, and the County
23 must publish a notice of the results that triggers a 30-day period during which people can bring
24 legal challenges to the bond referendum process. Then, to approve the issuance of bonds takes
25 only one more County Board resolution, with no other required public hearings or published
26 notices.
27
28 The real timing issue in proceeding with a bond issue centers around the progress of the
29 projects that are going to be financed. In general, the LGC wants to see that you are close to
30 construction with well-developed estimates and at least some bids in hand before closing on a
31 bond issue—the LGC wants to be sure you don't borrow too much money, or too little money, or
32 borrow it earlier than you need it. We can coordinate the construction and the bond processes
33 so as not to delay the County's projects.
34
35 The County has seven years from a successful referendum date to issue voter-approved
36 bonds. The LGC can extend this period to ten years, and over the last several years the LGC
37 has routinely granted extensions. There is never any obligation for the County in fact to issue
38 any or all of the bonds approved at a referendum.
39
40
41 Related purposes and ballot questions. Each separate general purpose for bonds has
42 to be the subject of its own Bond Order and its own separate ballot question. Purposes for
43 which bonds are to be issued have to be related to be included in a single question, and
44 unrelated purposes cannot be combined. For example, a bond purpose of"public safety" could
45 cover improvements to police and fire facilities. On the other hand, "fire facilities" and "park
46 improvements" could not be combined on a single ballot question.
47
48 Determining which purposes will be put before the voters, and how much in bonds will
49 be proposed for each purpose, is the essential nature of developing the bond plan as described
50 in Step 1. We would recommend that the questions put to voters propose a dollar amount of
51 bonds for broad categories, as appropriate—for example, a dollar amount for "streets and
5
1 sidewalk improvements" or for "public safety improvements."Although the statutes allow the
2 purposes to be stated with more specificity, it is highly recommended that the purposes be left in
3 more generalized categories so that the County Board retains flexibility within the categories
4 that voters approve to meet conditions that may change over time.
5
6 Please let me know if you have any questions about this information, or if I can be of any
7 other assistance.
8 -- RMJ
9 Orange County -- Proposed Timetable for November '16 Bond Referendum
10
11
Event Date
1. Determine referendum plan —tentative As soon as possible
amounts and purposes, and target election
date
2. Give informal notice to County Board of As soon as possible after informal decision to
Elections proceed with a November referendum
3. Meet with LGC staff As soon as convenient after informal decision on
referendum plan— prior to Event 5
4. Obtain school board resolutions Prior to Event 5— school boards to act by end of
March 2016
5. Board adopts preliminary resolution BOCC meeting in April
explaining purpose for referendum, stating
purposes and maximum amounts of bonds
to be considered, and authorizing
publication of notice of intent to file LGC
application
6. Publish notice of intent to file application As soon as possible after Event 5
7. Make legislative committee 45-day filing As soon as possible after Event 5
8. Prepare statement of debt and statement of In connection with preparing LGC application
estimated interest
9. File LGC application Must be at least 10 days after Event 6 and prior
to Event 9
10. Board introduces bond orders and BOCC meeting in May
schedules public hearing
11. Publish notice of public hearing After Event 10 and at least six days prior to
Event 12
12. Hold public hearing; adopt bond orders; BOCC meeting in June (or could separate public
formally set ballot questions and hearings and final action between two different
referendum date June meetings)
13. Publish bond order as adopted As soon as possible after Event 12
14. Absentee ballots to be available By September 19
15. Publish notice of referendum (twice) By 9/23; then by 9/30
16. Referendum occurs 11/8/2016
12
13 Commissioner Rich asked if the dates in item #14 on page 4 all refer to 2016.
14 Paul Laughton said yes.
15 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the memo at their places and in their agenda, and
16 asked if the bond process is still at step one.
17 Paul Laughton said yes.
6
1 Commissioner Burroughs referred to item number 7 in the memorandum that instructs
2 the County to "Make Legislative Committee 45-day filing". She asked if the specific legislative
3 body could be identified.
4 Bob Jessup said a few years ago legislation was put in place that required local
5 governments, which sought to borrow more than $1 million for anything other than schools or
6 courthouses, to make a filing with the joint legislative committee on local government. He said
7 this is just a notice filing, and nothing substantive.
8 Commissioner Pelissier referred to item number 5 on page 2, which states "Adopt
9 Findings Resolution". She asked if there are any guidelines for demonstrating "why the
10 proposed projects are necessary and desirable".
11 Bob Jessup said the Local Government Commission (LGC) wants to hear the County's
12 specifics, and what the local governing board has already approved. He said it is not the intent
13 of the LGC to question the reasoning.
14 Chair McKee referred to page 6 and the resolution mentioned in point number 5. He
15 asked if this is the resolution that sets the bond in hard concrete, and if the listed April 2016 date
16 is a hard date, or a projected one.
17 Bob Jessup said the school board can make requests at any level, but nothing is in
18 concrete until the Board of County Commissioners has acted. He said he has the meeting in
19 April 2016, in order to have time to file and print. He said April is a tentative date, but May 2016
20 is not.
21 Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 7, where it says, "there is never any obligation
22 for the County to issue any or all of the bonds approved in the referendum". She asked if the
23 schools could take any action, if the Board does not assign all of the funding from a bond to
24 them.
25 Bob Jessup said the schools could say that all their capital needs are not being met, but
26 it is the Board's bond, not the schools.
27
28 Attachment B-
29 Paul Laughton said Ted Cole would be the presenting Attachment 1-B for Davenport.
30 He referred to page 2 of the abstract, which shows the areas that will be covered in the
31 presentation:
32 • Peer comparatives and Key Debt Ratios
33 • Review of the County's existing Debt Profile
34 • Evaluate the impact of the County's current FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
35 debt issuances
36 • Evaluate the impact of a $125 million General Obligation Bond Referendum, as well as
37 the impact of$130 million and $135 million case scenarios
38 Ted Cole reviewed the Discussion Materials found in Attachment 1-B
39 • Review the County's existing Debt Profile.
40 • Evaluate the impact of the County's proposed CIP Debt Issuances and potential General
41 Obligation Bond Referendum:
42 —Analyze a series of Key Financial Ratios to evaluate the County's Debt Capacity.
43 —Measure the Debt Affordability of the proposed projects.
44
45 Paul Laughton said the Board has the annually reviewed CIP, and tonight they will
46 consider the addition of three potential bond amounts: $125 million, $130 million and $135
47 million. He said the two main concepts that will be considered are: 1.) debt capacity and 2.)
48 debt affordability.
49 Ted Cole referred to page 3, which reviewed the Peer Comparatives and the County's
50 bond rating. He said Orange County has the highest rating possible from all three rating
7
1 agencies, which is AAA across the board. He said Davenport subscribes to data that is
2 compiled and tracked by Moody's Investors Service.
3
4 Peer Comparative Introduction-
5 - The County is currently rated AAA by Moody's Investors Service (May 2015), AAA by
6 Standard and Poor's (June 2015), and AAA by Fitch (June 2015).
7 - The following pages contain peer comparatives based on the Moody's AAA peer
8 counties listed below.
9 - National AAA Counties - 80 Credits
10 - North Carolina AAA Counties - 7 Credits
11 —Durham
12 —Forsyth
13 —Guilford
14 —Mecklenburg
15 —New Hanover
16 —Orange
17 —Wake
18
19 Ted Cole referred to page 5, and the County's Existing Tax Supported Debt, which is
20 incorporated here by reference. He said debt attributed to Sportsplex, Solid Waste, and Water
21 and Sewer has been excluded. He said there is $184 million principle outstanding:
22
23 Par Outstanding — Estimated as of 6/30/2015
Type Par Amount
General Obligation $68,355,000
Bonds
IPCs / COPs/ LOBs $115,606,204
Total $183,961,204
24
25 He said all debt is fixed rate, and will be paid off by 2033.
26 Chair McKee asked if these numbers assume any new debt.
27 Ted Cole said no, this is existing debt only.
28 Ted Cole referred to page 6, which outlines Key Debt Ratios. He said these ratios will
29 be reviewed by the LGC and the rating agencies, and they are important.
30
31 10 year Payout Ratio
32 • Orange County (MFRA): 84.8%
33 • Orange County (2016): 88.4%
34 • North Carolina AAA Counties:
35 — Minimum 73.6%
36 — Median 84.8%
37 — Maximum 93.6%
38 • National AAA Counties:
39 — Minimum 23.8%
40 — Median 74.3%
41 — Maximum 100%
42
43 Debt to Assessed Value
44 • Orange County (MFRA): 1.2%
45 • Orange County (2016): 1.1%
8
1 • North Carolina AAA Counties:
2 — Minimum 1.2%
3 — Median 1.5%
4 — Maximum 1.6%
5 • National AAA Counties:
6 — Minimum 0.0%
7 — Median 0.6%
8 — Maximum 3.5%
9
10 Debt Service to Expenditures
11 • Orange County (MFRA): 13.6%
12 • Orange County (2016)1: 12.7%
13 • North Carolina AAA Counties:
14 — Minimum 13.6%
15 — Median 16.8%
16 — Maximum 23.8%
17 • National AAA Counties:
18 — Minimum 0.0%
19 — Median 8.8%
20 — Maximum 23.8%
21
22 Ted Cole said the County does have a maximum Debt Service to General Fund
23 Revenue policy of debt policy of 15 percent.
24 Ted Cole said the County has been managed well, as related to debt, and there is some
25 room to take on some additional debt. He said the County has debt capacity.
26 Ted Cole referred to page 7 which reviewed the Decline in Tax Supported Debt Service.
27 He said this relates to affordability. He reviewed two tables which are incorporated here by
28 reference. He said the County is retiring its debt rapidly.
29 Ted Cole said the decline in the annual debt service should be captured in order to
30 finance new debt.
31 Ted Cole referred to pages 9 and 10 which give a Case Overview of the Capital
32 Improvement Plan:
33
34 • As part of the annual CIP process, the County identifies Capital Projects for potential
35 debt funding. In addition to the potential debt issuances in the CIP the County is
36 considering voting a General Obligation Bond Referendum in November 2016.
37
38 • Future debt is assumed to be funded under the following assumptions:
39 —Issuance Date: As indicated
40 —First Interest: Fiscal Year Following Issuance
41 —First Principal: Fiscal Year Following Issuance
42 —Interest Rate: 3.75% -4.50%
43 —Term: 20 Years
44 —Non-GO Amortization: Level Principal
45 —GO Amortization: Level Principal
46
47 Key Debt Ratio Growth Assumptions:
48 —Assessed Value - Natural Growth: 2017: 1.50%, 2018 & Beyond: 2.00%
9
1 —General Fund Revenues - Natural Growth: 2017: 1.50%, 2018 & Beyond: 2.00% plus
2 revenue derived from projected tax
3 increases associated with capital
4
5 Ted Cole said all of the debt being modeled is 20 years and level principle. He said
6 some growth in some of these key ratios is being assumed.
7 Ted Cole said referred to the bottom of page 9 where four cases have been analyzed:
8
9 Cases Analyzed:
10 —Existing Debt Only
11 —Case 1: Existing Debt and $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021) (Total:
12 $103,845,296)
13 —Case 2: Existing Debt, $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021), and $125 Million GO
14 Referendum (Total: $228,845,296)
15 —Case 3: Existing Debt, $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021), and $130 Million GO
16 Referendum (Total: $233,845,296)
17 —Case 4: Existing Debt, $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021), and $135 Million GO
18 Referendum (Total: $238,845,296)
19
20 Ted Cole referred to page 10, which is incorporated here by reference, that reviews the
21 timing and case summary. He said case one looks at the CIP. He said this is debt-only projects
22 (not pay as you go projects) and shows how much debt is expected. He said the General Fund
23 and School Projects in the CIP total $103,845,296.
24 Ted Cole said case two looks at the CIP as well as an additional $125 million bond
25 referendum. He said case three looks at the CIP as well as an additional $130 million bond
26 referendum. He said case four looks at the CIP as well as additional $135 million bond
27 referendum.
28 Ted Cole said with a successful referendum the County has seven years to issue bonds.
29 Ted Cole referred to page eleven, which is incorporated here by reference, that gives a
30 summary of the results for existing debt only, as well as the four case studies previously
31 mentioned.
32 Ted Cole said the bottom of page eleven identifies how many equivalent pennies on the
33 tax rate would be necessary to dedicate towards debt service beyond what is already in the
34 budget. He said it shows these amounts if done in increments, as well as if the increases were
35 done all at one time. He said a penny generates about$1.6 million.
36 Ted Cole said many assumptions have been made in modeling up this debt. He said the
37 debt policy is good but if the budget goes above the 15 percent policy for a couple of years this
38 is still a doable plan.
39 Chair McKee asked if exceeding the debt briefly affects the County's bond rating.
40 Ted Cole said going over the 15 percent is part of an overall plan is understood by the
41 rating agencies, and gives them some level of comfort.
42 Chair McKee asked if these numbers assume that revenues remain constant.
43 Ted Cole said in these projections revenues are being grown up by a small percentage
44 and it has been identified that the County will need to come up with new revenue to pay new
45 debt. He said that is figured in the analysis.
46 Commissioner Price referred to page 7, lines 33-34, and asked if taxes would need to be
47 raised.
48 Ted Cole said yes. He said as the County brings on new debt it must be determined
49 how much more revenue must be brought on to pay for this debt. He said there are other
50 options besides a tax increase such as securing other revenue sources or cutting expenditures.
51 He said case one refers to the current debt, not including a potential referendum.
10
1 Chair McKee referred to line 38 on page 11, and asked if this is a tax increase required
2 solely by the debt and does not include any tax increases that may be incurred by increases in
3 operations.
4 Ted Cole said yes.
5 Paul Laughton said it had been a pleasure to work with the Bond Counsel and
6 Davenport throughout the process.
7 Chair McKee said the Board would be talking with the schools on September 29th. He
8 said at the September 15th meeting there would be time for public comment on this issue. He
9 recommended hearing all public comments, even if it exceeds the standard one-hour time
10 allotment.
11 Commissioner Rich asked if the October 6th meeting would only include further
12 discussion.
13 Chair McKee said that meeting is planned to be the final discussion and possibly a vote.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if the specific purpose of that vote could be identified.
15 Chair McKee said vote would determine the date, the items, and the amount of the
16 potential bond.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if the vote must occur on October 6th
18 Chair McKee said that would be up to the Board of County Commissioners but reminded
19 the Board that it did vote intent on April 21, 2015.
20 Commissioner Rich said she had concerns about not allowing more public comment on
21 this issue, and she is unsure if October 6th would give people enough time.
22 Commissioner Dorosin asked, with the November 2016 referendum date in mind, if there
23 is a drop dead date that step one on the memorandum must be completed.
24 Bob Jessup said only if the Board is shooting for a meeting date in April 2016.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Bond Counsel needs a certain amount of lead-time.
26 Bob Jessup said three weeks before the agenda deadline, which is in March.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure the Board wants to wait that long. He said he
28 would like to take some time to talk about whether the funding is just for schools, or are there
29 other issues to be considered.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said it is critical that the comment period be extended past
31 October 6th to give others an opportunity to engage in the process.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said the bond should have more than just the schools on it. He
33 said he would like to see affordable housing on the bond. He said if the Board decides not to
34 include affordable housing on the bond, it gives the impression that the Board likes to talk about
35 affordable housing but does not want to take any action on the issue.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said this target would need innovative solutions and readily
37 available funding that a bond would provide. He said he has heard that affordable housing
38 should not be on the bond, because the County does not have an affordable housing plan. He
39 said other entities do have plans, and if the Board wants a good plan it can incentivize the kind
40 of plan that is desired.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said if the Board is going to limit what can be done for affordable
42 housing out of just the budget then the issue will continue to be addressed in a piece meal
43 fashion. He said he believes the public would strongly support a bond in favor of affordable
44 housing.
45 Commissioner Dorosin said he knows the school needs exceed $125 million but there is
46 enough to go around for all. He said education is a primary value to this County, but poverty
47 impacts students. He said every effort the Board puts into schools has to contend with the
48 experiences these children encounter outside of the classroom.
49 Commissioner Dorosin implored the Board to put some of the money from the bond into
50 affordable housing.
11
1 Chair McKee said he realized this issue demanded more attention than just a brief
2 discussion. He said he hoped the Board is able to get enough dialogue to make an informed
3 decision.
4 Commissioner Burroughs said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin that affordable
5 housing needs to be addressed. She said teachers know about these kids. She said the bond
6 is a way to demonstrate how the Board feels about affordable housing, but it is not how she
7 would propose to address the need. She said there are other options for funding outside the
8 bond to address affordable housing, and she is willing to look at the CIP more closely, shifting
9 priorities to release some more funding. She said she believes the Board of County
10 Commissioners can make the CIP changes to address affordable housing.
11 Commissioner Burroughs said sometimes bonds fail, but she believes a bond dedicated
12 to the schools would be certain to pass. She said she is willing to review the CIP process, and
13 shift their priorities.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said the Housing Director is supposed to be bringing back a
15 plan.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said specific areas are being reviewed before there is an actual
17 affordable housing plan.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said she does support affordable housing, but that the
19 schools' needs are so much greater.
20 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Burroughs and said refraining from
21 putting affordable housing on a bond does not reflect the support the she and the Board has for
22 this issue. She said maybe there are other ways to fund affordable housing besides a bond.
23 She said there are ways to decrease costs for homeowners for lower income housing.
24 Commissioner Rich said a group of stakeholders has not been gathered to find out what
25 people in the community really want in a bond, and she has concerns about this whole process.
26 She said the message is out there that all of the funds were intended for the schools. She said
27 a bond may pass in the towns, but people in the County may not feel the same.
28 Commissioner Rich said she attended a recent Triangle J Council of Governments
29 (TJCOG) meeting, where they brainstormed about issues that were pertinent to their areas.
30 She said seniors were the unanimous issue.
31 Commissioner Rich said the County and the schools should take responsibility for the
32 neglected schools. She said the schools are really in need of$300 million. She said lessons
33 must be learned from the past. She said if seniors, housing and parks are ignored, or if monies
34 are eliminated from current CIP Projects, then another hole is being dug. She said no one
35 seems able to figure out how money would be found in the CIP. She said shifting money does
36 not solve the problem.
37 Commissioner Pelissier said she agreed with a lot of what Commissioner Burroughs
38 said. She said this bond discussion started with the discussion of aging schools over the years.
39 She said $125 million has been discussed. She said she feels the reason to do a bond is
40 because the schools capital needs are a big-ticket item. She said there is not $125 million
41 anywhere in the CIP. She said the conversation has shifted, and now everyone thinks that no
42 one will get anything unless it is on a bond. She said that is just not true. She said the bond is
43 not just a matter of asking the public what they want; rather it is the Board saying to the public
44 we need a particular thing. She said the budget process should not just focus on operational
45 needs, but should also include the CIP, as it did this year.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said his recollection is different. He said the schools had needs,
47 and one way to address them was with the bond. He said he never thought the bond was only
48 going to the schools until the BOCC meeting in April.
49 Commissioner Dorosin said there is consensus to do a $125 million bond, and the tax
50 burden will be the same regardless of where the money goes. He said not putting housing on
51 the bond does not reflect that the Board does not support affordable housing, but he does feel it
12
1 shows it to not be a priority. He said he does not believe the fear of failing should keep
2 affordable housing off a bond. He acknowledged the great needs of the schools, but added that
3 the community has a lot of needs. He said it is inaccurate to think of housing and school needs
4 as disconnected.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said having money in a bond for housing is an acknowledgment
6 of the need.
7 Chair McKee said he is concerned with the idea that without a bond the Board can do
8 nothing. He said money can be borrowed, etc. He said his understanding is that the schools
9 were primary in this bond discussion from the start. He said he has not seen indication of this
10 Board opposing housing, parks, etc. He said he disagrees with the notion that if an item is not
11 on a bond then nothing will happen to address the item.
12 Chair McKee said, with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion, the Board created a $100
13 million land-banking project in the CIP in one night. He said he started evolving towards a one-
14 issue bond for the schools in the spring of 2015, especially in reference to safety.
15 Chair McKee said there is still the possibility that the legislature could throw a wrench
16 into all of this.
17 Chair McKee said he supports affordable housing, seniors, parks, etc. He said, as of
18 now, he is supportive of bond funding going exclusively for the schools.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said he was the first one to suggest a bond because of the 2013
20 school shootings in Connecticut. He said at times the Board had to choose operational needs
21 over structural needs for the schools years ago. He said he had every expectation that the
22 bond process would be transparent, with early engagement in the process by the public, etc.
23 He said the Board has not had that type of conversation yet, but only assumptions. He said this
24 is a flawed process and a disservice to the community. He said actions speak louder than
25 words and that the message being sent is that other issues are not as important as schools. He
26 said a big deal has been made about a bond and trying to educate the public. He said the
27 Board is saying that schools are the only one issue that is important.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said he felt disappointed in this Board up to this point about this
29 process, and he hoped there would never be a bond discussion/process like this again. He said
30 everyone is in a reactive mode now, and this issue was decided back in April.
31
32 2. Implementation of the Strategic Communications Plan
33 Laurie Paolicelli, Community Relations Director, said this Board decided a year ago that
34 a strategic communications plan was needed for Orange County in order to stay relevant.
35 Laurie Paolicelli said Chapel Hill finished their website for $150,000, and now Wake County has
36 set a goal of 10,000 Facebook followers in order to communicate more effectively with
37 residents.
38 Laurie Paolicelli said some of the surrounding towns are using survey monkey to engage
39 residents about bonds and initiatives.
40 Laurie Paolicelli said the Strategic Communications Work Group laid down the
41 groundwork for her plan, and represented a diverse group of employees and what was needed
42 to move forward in this area.
43 Laurie Paolicelli presented the following PowerPoint slides:
44
45 Orange County, North Carolina, government
46 2015-2016 Communications
47 Implementation Plan
48
49 Community Engagement
13
1 Orange County, North Carolina's mission is to provide excellent services that support healthy,
2 safe and sustainable communities; preserve Orange County's unique environmental heritage;
3 and encourage meaningful participation in the governance of the County by its residents.
4 Communicating with our various audiences and being assured we are reaching more of them is
5 crucial to our mission.
6
7 BOCC Overriding principles
8 • Obtaining the highest quality standards in Orange County Schools
9 • Upholding a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity
10 • Committing to economic development so that business growth and job opportunities result
11 • Preserving the best of Orange County's unique historical significance and heritage in North
12 Carolina while positioning the County to be in the forefront of progressive enterprise
13 • Strengthening Orange County's commitment to the environment
14 • Streamlining Orange County government to reduce waste, increase efficiency, and promote a
15 positive climate for all
16 • Adopting fiscal responsibility as a core principle
17
18 Communications Objectives
19 • Support Orange County Commissioners' vision and strategic goals by reporting on activities
20 and programs that are advancing the Commissioners' objectives.
21 • Facilitate two-way dialogue between Orange County government and County residents so they
22 have the opportunity to be actively engaged in decision-making and are aware of County
23 services and activities.
24 • Enhance communications at and among all levels of County government.
25 • Help internal County communicators/marketing staff produce communications/ marketing
26 materials that have some consistency in design and content, thereby presenting a professional
27 image of Orange County.
28
29 Assumptions
30 Orange County's Community Relations Plan was created with these assumptions:
31 • Proactive vs. Reactive
32 The intent of this communications plan is to stay in front of community issues by taking a
33 proactive rather than a reactive approach.
34
35 • Strongly Themed vs. Scattered Messages
36 Communication should reinforce and reflect the vision established by the Orange County Board
37 of Commissioners (BOCC), underscoring the idea of a government with a common purpose in
38 concert with its residents.
39
40 • Two-way vs. One-way
41 It's a bloggers world in 2015 and journalism is evolving from a lecture to a conversation. These
42 changes have created new issues for the news industry. It is recommended that we address the
43 accuracy of information retrieved through blogs and social platforms, with a dedicated page on
44 www.orangecountync.gov that addresses rumors with factual accuracies.
45
46 Orange County, NC, Population
47 July 1, 2013
48 Population Estimate:
49 139,694
50 *2013 estimate calculated by North Carolina's Office of State Budget & Management.
51 Southern communities
14
1 94,498 or 70.6% or 7 out 10 residents live in southern Orange County
2 Northern communities
3 39,304 or 29.4% or 3 out of 10 residents
4
5 Reaching our Residents
6 60 and older: 17%
7 30-60 years old: 38%
8 30 and under: 45%
9 • Population
10 Communications plan must address how we will reach a growing senior population while staying
11 in touch with the latest tools that our young population uses.
12 • Commuting
13 42% of our residents work in another county
14 Communications plan must address how we will reach the Triangle media.
15 • Employment
16 There are more Government employees (32,478) than Private Industry employees (31,340)
17
18 Reaching our Residents
19
20 Housing
21 40% is renter occupied housing
22 We must address all citizens, owners and renters, through targeted media.
23 • Local Businesses
24 Out of a total of 3,759
25 Private Industry establishments, 86 are involved in manufacturing, employing 1,459 workers.
26 This represents 2.2% of our workforce.
27 Hillsborough Chapel Hill
28 • Population Change, 2000-2010
29 The highest rate of growth is the east west corridor of 1-40/85, which includes:
30 Cheeks Twp (32%), Hillsborough Twp (19%), and Eno Township (23%)
31 Communication to all county townships, rural residents is critical
32
33 Goals for Community Engagement
34 • Begin an "Orange County This Month" advertising program in two local newspapers, News of
35 Orange and Chapel Hill News, to communicate meetings, public hearings and local events
36 • Create a communications toolbox, including video, photos, talking points, facts sheets
37 • Send monthly consolidated news updates through Public Affairs Office
38 • Explore options of simplifying links to specific agenda items for public use and social media
39 • Augment Facebook news with short updates on local residents who are making a difference
40 • Consider transit wraps on buses
41 • Produce new Orange County videos for use in public buildings and to open community
42 meetings
43
44 Goals for Community Engagement
45 • Continue to develop new communications tools to reach Orange County citizens
46 • Implement Orange County telephone number that is serviced by a staff member
47 • Build social media plan to reach larger majority of Orange County citizens
48 • Continue to build content and navigability of website
49
50 Carla Banks presented this portion of the presentation:
15
1
2 Media Focus
3 Media: Chapel Hill News
4 Circulation: 40,000 Sundays
5 Description: Orange County This Month Advertisement one day per month
6
7 Media: The Herald Sun, Durham
8 Circulation: approx 21,367 daily
9 Description: Column, once a month, Orange County Chair
10
11 Media: News of Orange
12 Circulation: 3,800, published Thursday
13 Description: Orange County This Month Advertisement one day per month
14
15 Media: Chapelboro.com and WCHL
16 Circulation: 150,000 per month and 60,000 per month
17 Description: Media packages include on air interviews and web banners purchased through
18 Public Affairs
19
20 Subtotal 275,167
21
22 Media: OrangeCountyNC
23 Circulation: website 146,000 Monthly users
24 Description: Most important in reaching citizens with government news and community
25 programming.
26
27 Media: Municipality websites
28 - townofchapelhill.org
29 - ci.carrboro.nc.us
30 - ci.hillsborough.nc.us
31 Description: Potential forums in which to broadcast important county messaging and also
32 provide a link to the county website, giving more residents and visitors access to important
33 information.
34
35 Media: The Daily Tar Heel
36 Circulation: 1 x column per week; 152,000/ month readership
37 Description: Student newspaper and vehicle in which to reach student body through columns
38 and news features.
39
40 Media: WHUP Radio Hillsborough
41 Circulation: On air in August 2015, the Community Relations
42 Department has secured on-going radio spots to communicate important messaging about
43 Orange County.
44
45 Laurie Paolicelli presented this portion of the presentation:
46
47 New Media
48 There is growing demand for prompt, coordinated and accurate communications, delivered
49 through more contemporary channels, following advances in technology. The County currently
50 uses a variety of methods to communicate to the media and directly to the public. Electronic
51 methods have expanded with increased use of email, website and social media, yet there is
16
1 still a diversity of preferences on how people prefer to receive information.
2 The following mediums will be used for Orange County engagement:
3 • Facebook
4 • Twitter
5 • Instagram
6
7 Online tax bill dashboard
8 Consider using property tax bills to communicate services provided to residents. In addition, this
9 communications can be placed on-line, as a dashboard for residents who want more information
10 on county services provided.
11
12 Supporting Communicators in Orange County
13 • Recommended Bi-Monthly Meetings (September, November, January, March,
14 May, July) with County Communicators
15 • Goal is to share ideas and maximize resources
16 • Learn from each other's strengths, i.e., use of social media, presentations, writing for digital
17 media
18 • Host guest speakers who are subject matter experts
19 • Share information on communications best practices that can help Orange County
20
21 Budget
22 Media Description Annual Budget
23 News of Orange 3 column by 10, 1 ad per month $3,000.00
24 Chapel Hill News 3 column by 10, 1 ad per month $4,800.00
25 New logo package Business cards/letterhead package $5,000.00
26 Graphics support over 12 as needed $10,000.00
27 months
28 Opportunities as needed $15,000.00
29 Social Media boosts as needed $5,000.00
30 Printing as needed $7,000.00
31 Total $49,800.00
32
33 Commissioner Rich thanked Laurie Paolicelli and Bonnie Hammersley for their input.
34 Commissioner Rich said Laurie Paolicelli reconvened the Communication Work Group a
35 couple of weeks ago. She said the group thought they had provided enough guidelines to
36 Laurie Paolicelli for her to move forward with implementation of this plan.
37 Commissioner Rich said the County was falling behind on technology, and feels this is a
38 great next step. She supported using the logo, as opposed to the seal.
39 Commissioner Rich said she would like to see an updated business card in person.
40 Laurie Paolicelli gave her some samples.
41 Commissioner Rich referred to the budget, and asked if$50,000 will be taken from the
42 CHOCVB for marketing the County.
43 Laurie Paolicelli said Orange County has always funded the CHOCVB through their a-
44 tax. She said Chapel Hill keeps a great portion of their a-tax for promotions, and Carrboro and
45 Hillsborough keeps all of theirs. She said it is very fair to use these funds, and they are already
46 set-aside in the current budget.
47 Commissioner Rich said the website does need to be addressed as it is not where it
48 needs to be.
49 Laurie Paolicelli said there is a terrific web team, which is discussing how to improve the
50 web either incrementally, or all at one time at a cost of about$20,000. She said this needs to
51 be a priority.
17
1 Commissioner Price said it is worthwhile to update the website.
2 Commissioner Price said she has received compliments regarding the work that both
3 Carla Banks and Laurie Paolicelli have done.
4 Commissioner Jacobs asked if new Orange County videos that are being produced are
5 streamed around their meetings.
6 Laurie Paolicelli said videos are not yet being used in the buildings, but the idea can be
7 looked into.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said informational inserts could be put in tax bills.
9 Laurie Paolicelli said more of a dashboard or newsletters are being considered
10 surrounding the tax bills.
11 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Laurie Paolicelli for including Mebane on the draft
12 business cards.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said he has heard complaints about using outside vendors for
14 things like business cards.
15 Laurie Paolicelli said it is the intention to shop Orange County when possible.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the direction the County is taking and suggested
17 using social media for comments about the website. She said having a place for citizen
18 comments or complaints would also be useful. She asked if this idea is being pursued.
19 Laurie Paolicelli said she was unsure about this, but would follow up.
20 Commissioner Jacobs thanked them all for their dedication and said their work is a great
21 improvement.
22 Laurie Paolicelli credited the Strategic Communications Work Group for their efforts.
23
24 3. Goal Setting Presentation
25 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed a process that she would like to implement in the next
26 couple of months.
27 Bonnie Hammersley presented the following PowerPoint slides:
28
29 Goal-Setting Process: A Roadmap for Achieving Goals
30 Board of Orange County Commissioners
31 Work Session
32 September 10, 2015
33
34 Purpose of goal setting
35 ➢ Clearly define issues and strategies
36 ➢ Reach consensus or agreement on the major goals — BOCC and Department Directors
37 ➢ Integrate the goal setting into the budget process to ensure resources are available to
38 attain them
39 ➢ Regularly review and report on progress toward goal attainment
40
41 Definitions
42 Issue— challenge or problem that needs to be addressed over the span of one or more fiscal
43 years
44 Goal—end result or outcome that is desired with a given strategy
45 Strategy— method or approach employed to address an issue
46
47 Example
48 COUNTY-WIDE
49 Issue— Information is not provided consistently to Orange County residents on significant
50 county issues
18
1 Goal—Transparent county government that is open and residents are engaged
2 Strategy—Create an internal Communications Committee to develop a plan with input from
3 internal and external resources to keep residents informed
4
5 Example
6 Board Specific
7 Issue— Improve information provided on the abstracts related to the social justice impact
8 Goal—Adopt Social Justice Impact Goals for inclusion in the decision-making process
9 Strategy—Create a sub-committee of the BOCC to identify and recommend social justice
10 impact goals
11
12 Roles and responsibilities
13 Goal Setting
14 ➢ Functional leadership teams
15 • Identify and prioritize issues
16 • Recommend goals and strategies
17 • Develop work plans and identify needed resources
18 • Measure progress and report
19 ➢ Board of County Commissioners
20 • Identify and prioritize issues
21 • Review strategies and adopt goals
22 • Adopt budget
23 • Review results
24
25 Goal Setting Cycle (graphic)
26
27 Functional Leadership Teams
28 ➢ Community Services
29 • Animal services
30 • Cooperative extension
31 • Community relations and tourism
32 • DEAPR
33 • Economic development
34 • Library
35 • Planning
36 • Solid Waste
37
38 ➢ Human Services and Education
39 • Aging
40 • Child support
41 • Housing
42 • Library
43 • Public Health
44 • Social Services
45 • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
46 • Orange County Schools
47 • Durham Technical College
48
49 ➢ General Government
19
1 • Board of Elections
2 • Clerk to the Board
3 • County Attorney
4 • County Manager
5 • Register of Deeds
6 • Tax Administration
7
8 ➢ Public Safety
9 • Sheriff
10 • Animal Services
11 • Clerk of Courts
12 • Emergency Services
13 • District Attorney
14 • Public Defender
15 • Public Health
16
17 ➢ Support Services
18 • Asset Management Services
19 • Community Relations
20 • County Manager
21 • Finance Department
22 • Human Resources
23 • Information Technology
24
25 Goal setting week
26 ➢ COMMUNITY SERVICES —October 20, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
27 ➢ GENERAL GOVERNMENT — October 19, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
28 ➢ HUMAN SERVICES & EDUCATION —October 22, 8:OOAM — 12:OOPM
29 ➢ PUBLIC SAFETY—October 22, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
30 ➢ SUPPORT SERVICES —October 19, 8:OOAM — 12:OOPM
31 ➢ BOCC —October 23, 8:OOAM — 12:OOPM
32 ➢ BOCC & LEADERSHIP TEAMS —October 23, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
33
34 Proposed steps and timeline
35 ➢ 1. Hold individual goal setting sessions with leadership teams and BOCC followed by a
36 combined session to identify issues and develop or refine strategies and goals. The
37 sessions will include a process of identifying issues team specific as well as countywide.
38 (October 19-23)
39 ➢ 2. Leadership Teams and staff develop objectives and budget proposals for the
40 following fiscal year. (November and December)
41 ➢ 3. Report to Board on strategies and budget proposals in advance of budget preparation
42 and make modifications as necessary. (BOCC Retreat)
43 ➢ 4. Manager, in consultation with leadership teams, decides on goals and strategies that
44 will be included in the following proposed budget. (February and March)
45 ➢ 5. As part of the regular budget process, the Board reviews budget proposals related to
46 goals and strategies and makes final decisions in conjunction with budget adoption as
47 well as reviewing progress on goals from prior years. (May and June)
48 ➢ 6. Results from the preceding year(s), including most recently available performance
49 data, are compiled for next year's goal setting work sessions with directors and Board.
50 (July and August)
20
1
2 Questions and suggestions?
3 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the process of the goal setting in these teams, and
4 asked if there are specific things upon which the goals are being based. He asked if there are
5 internal goals. He said it looks to him as if these groups are working independently, as opposed
6 to the Board of County Commissioners setting goals for these departments.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said most of Orange County has the same goals. She said the
8 teams would discuss what countywide goals are, followed by team-specific ones. She said
9 when everyone comes together countywide goals will be discussed.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board of County Commissioners already has the 2009
11 goals and asked if the Manager is talking about more specific goals.
12 Bonnie Hammersley said the larger goals have many issues and strategies to address
13 the goals, but one or two specific goals will be identified to address in the coming year.
14 Chair McKee asked if the group meetings would be open to the Commissioners
15 attending, or would it be better for Commissioners to remain apart.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said she would never exclude a Commissioner from a meeting.
17
18 4. Board of Commissioners DRAFT Meeting Calendar for Year 2016
19
20 Chair McKee said this item seeks to gather input from the Board of County
21 Commissioners on the draft 2016 Board of County Commissioners calendar.
22 Commissioner Jacobs suggested moving the Manager's evaluation from June 28th to
23 another date and mentioned that March 15th could possibly be a Presidential primary date so it
24 may be necessary to move that meeting.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board has too many meetings and he would like to avoid
26 having two meetings per week. He suggested the idea of dropping or shifting meetings. He
27 suggested adding more items to the consent agenda on the regular meeting agenda.
28 Commissioner Dorosin suggested trying to combine specialized meetings together in
29 some way.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said it seemed like the Board was more interested in talking
31 about goals and priorities during those budget meetings and asked if there is value in that. He
32 said he believes that those discussions are more effective if they are question driven.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said these multitudes of meetings are also a burden on the staff.
34 Chair McKee said more items have been shifted to the consent agenda in the past few
35 months.
36 Chair McKee said the fire departments' meeting could occur in the first half of a meeting
37 and add a work session in the second half of the same meeting.
38 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the bond discussion tonight and said an hour was
39 spent on the presentation. He said that is the kind of item could be done in a regular meeting,
40 with work sessions serving as a time for the Board to talk together.
41 Commissioner Burroughs said one of the things that surprised her when she came on
42 the Board last year was how much time is given at the beginning of the regular meetings with
43 special presentations, etc., as well as the petition and comment sections of the meetings are
44 time consuming.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said past Commissioner Nelson fought against having any special
46 presentations, and wanted them on the consent agenda.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said one of the things that can create change is if the Manager is
48 trusted, then one will be more comfortable putting items on the consent agenda.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said a monthly work session has been added during his tenure.
50 Commissioner Jacobs said he looked forward to having weeks with no meetings.
21
1 Commissioner Jacobs said concentrating on making meetings more efficient should be
2 an on-going process. He suggested adding this discussion to the retreat.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if it is easier to keep meetings on the schedule and eliminate
4 as necessary or if it is easier to add meetings in when needed.
5 The Clerk said it is easier to have the meetings scheduled and eliminate them if
6 necessary. She said staff could look at the calendar and play with it; however, staff does not
7 feel comfortable changing meetings without Board approval.
8 Commissioner Rich said she believed more people pay attention to the petitions and
9 comments than one might think. She said the Board might need to be more thoughtful about
10 making petitions. She said she does enjoy having open discussion between Board members
11 and she would like to see work sessions move in that direction.
12 Commissioner Pelissier said she too looked forward to weeks without meetings as it
13 allows the opportunity for travel and flexibility. She said the meetings with the Fire Chiefs and
14 the City of Mebane could be added to the second half of a work session.
15 Chair McKee said the City of Mebane had very few items for discussion.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said the complicating factor in meetings is that one cannot often
17 predict how long a given item may take in a meeting. She said sometimes items get put on
18 work sessions, but the items are more important to some Commissioners than others.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said he felt the work sessions are not that much different than
20 regular meetings. He said he sees little free flowing dialogue. He said having open dialogue in
21 regular meetings is just as important. He said 53 meetings is a limiting factor to who is able to
22 run to be a Commissioner. He recognized that the Board likes conversation but hoped the
23 Board can be more disciplined.
24 Commissioner Jacobs suggested trying a meeting without the Chair presiding over it.
25 He said it could be an open discussion with interruptions and talking over each other. He said it
26 would allow for normal conversation.
27 Chair McKee said he is willing to try this but is unsure if it will be more productive.
28 Commissioner Price said regular meetings should be on the calendar but she does not
29 see how they can be shortened as the Board never knows what items may arise. She said if
30 staff sees that a meeting can be shortened, cancelled or combined, they could suggest doing
31 so. She said it is important to understand the difference between regular meetings and work
32 sessions, and the goals of each.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said he recalled the discussion to remove the four Quarterly
34 Public Hearings (QPH).
35 John Roberts said that item will not be coming back, and that issue was removed from
36 consideration.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said there was an item that arose at a QPH that had two hours of
38 public comment. He said the Board felt if that item had been part of a regular hearing, it would
39 have overrun the meeting, allowing nothing else to be accomplished. He said if a Public
40 Hearings is expected to have minimal public discussion, it could be moved to a Regular
41 Meetings.
42 Chair McKee said some items could be moved to a regular meeting.
43 Commissioner Rich said meetings should to be shorter.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said some meetings should be removed.
45 Commissioner Pelissier said sometimes there are items on a regular agenda that get
46 moved to a work session, as a way to defer a vote.
47 Discussion ensued.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said this calendar is a vestige of the personalities from past
49 boards, and Orange County became known years ago as a county that kept asking for more
50 information. He said there no longer seems to be as many issues of control, and he feels with
51 greater trust in the Manager some of the scheduling issues will work themselves out.
22
1 The Clerk said peer counties average about 30-35 meetings a year, and the BOCC has
2 15 joint meetings that other counties do not have.
3 The following meetings were suggested to either remove/move from/on the draft
4 calendar:
5 • January 26th—work session
6 • March 3 d dinner meeting (5:30 p.m.) and work session (7:00 p.m.)
7 • April 12th —dinner meeting with advisory Board (5:30 p.m.)
8 • Move Manager's evaluation to Monday- June 20th
9 • Sept 8th work session (or combine with another meeting)
10 • October 12th work session combine with the Oct. 6th joint meeting with fire departments
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
13 adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17
18 Earl McKee, Chair
19
20 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
21