Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-13-2015 APPROVED 11/17/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION October 13, 2015 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. 1. Report on Article 46 Funds (One-Quarter Cent Sales Tax) to Support Education and Economic Development Programs in Orange County Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, referred to Attachment B, a spreadsheet with budgeted amounts and committed uses of the tax since its inception in April 2012. He reviewed this information. Paul Laughton said 50 percent of the Article 46 sales tax goes toward education, and 50 percent towards economic development. He referred to the tables. Paul Laughton said revenues were studied, and since 2012 collections have been over the budgeted amounts by about 9 percent. He said any excess will be reviewed on an annual basis and reported back to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), after which a budget amendment could be done to bring in the additional revenue and budget it equally for education and economic development. Commissioner Jacobs asked Paul Laughton to clarify if the BOCC determines how schools spend their Article 46 funds. Paul Laughton said the schools turn in a submittal showing how they would like to spend the money, and list their usages as part of their budgetary information. Chair McKee asked if the 9 percent overage that Paul Laughton mentioned is from the FY2014-2015. Paul Laughton said it is cumulative since the inception of the tax in April 2012, and the funds are sitting in the account. He said it is a separate special revenues fund. Commissioner Dorosin said the originally adopted resolution says that the schools can only use Article 46 funds for capital needs and Information Technology. Paul Laughton said yes, and that is how the funds have been used. Commissioner Dorosin said Orange County Schools (OCS) use their funds solely for Information Technology. Paul Laughton said yes, and that OCS has done so since the inception of the tax. Commissioner Rich clarified that the schools list their desired funding expenditures during the budget process. Paul Laughton said yes, it is listed annually as part of the schools' Capital Investment Plan (CIP) in March. Paul Laughton referred to the second table for economic development usages. He said the largest initiative is the debt service on the infrastructure. He said the debt service is 60 percent of the portion of economic development funds that are brought in. Paul Laughton said there was one other section within the economic development funds. He said this is an undesignated section, with two allocations for economic development utility extension projects. He said no specific projects have been currently identified for utility extensions. He said these funds are budgeted, but not yet committed. Chair McKee asked if the sewer line collapse project in Carrboro would fall under this category. Paul Laughton said yes, but asked Craig Benedict to elaborate. Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said this fund was more of a Morinaga-like utility extension. He said in that case there was a backbone system that was about 1,500 feet away from the project. He said funds were used to extend sewer and water to the Morinaga parcel of land. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are restrictions on the usage of this $500,000. Craig Benedict said the parameters would most likely be a Greenfields project where existing infrastructure is identified, and the project coming forward would show a return on the investment. He said there would be agreements in place showing that if utilities were extended, there would be a party responsible for their upkeep. He said it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Dorosin asked if funds must be used for the extension of water and sewer or natural gas, or is a more broad usage permitted. Craig Benedict said under infrastructure there could be any number of possibilities, though water and sewer is typical. Bonnie Hammersley said the funding in place is a placeholder and is not designated at this time. She said it is in this account, but can be used anywhere. Commissioner Rich referenced the Ephesus Fordham project and asked if the money for it would come from Article 46 funds. Craig Benedict said no decisions would be made until the projects come forth, and the data is reviewed. He said the Board of County Commissioners would determine from where the funds would come. Commissioner Rich said there are different categories for projects in the southern and northern portions of the County. Bonnie Hammersley said when data comes back staff would present a recommendation to the BOCC regarding funding sources. She said Article 46 funds would certainly be considered as a potential funding source. She said no funds are earmarked at this time, as amounts are unknown. Paul Laughton reviewed information from Attachment B, regarding the debt service. Commissioner Burroughs asked if funds have been budgeted yearly going into the future. Paul Laughton said funds have only been budget through FY 2015-2016. Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, presented the following PowerPoint slides: Orange County Economic Development Discussion of Article 46 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development) October 13, 2015 Economic Development Programs in Orange County Funded by "Article 46" (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development) (Pie chart) Economic Development Programs in Orange County Funded by "Article 46" (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development) • Debt Service on Ud|UUes& Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts Article 4O annual funding: $75O,OOOO[ OO96Oftotal • Small Business Loan Fund Article 4O annual funding: $2OO,OOOO[ 1O96Oftotal • Innovation/Incubator Center for Entrepreneurial Developments (LaUNCh Chapel Hill) Article 4O annual funding: $1OO,OOOO[ 896Of total funding • GrnaU Business Investment Grants Article 4O annual funding: $1OO,OOOO[ 896Oftotal • Agricultural Economic Development Grants Article 4O annual funding: $OO,OOOO[ 596Oftotal • Marketing and Collaborative Outreach Article 4O annual funding: $2O,OOOO[ 1.596Oftotal • Collateral Material, Advertising, Publishing Article 46 funding: $20,000 or 1.596 of total Total Allocation Per Year: $1'250'000 or 100% Debt Service on Utilities and Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts Article 46 annual funding: $750,000 or 60% of total Examples of : Town of Carrboro * County's 50/50 financial participation with the Town of Carrboro to share in the co-pay requirement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that funded the repair ofa failing sewer line on Roberson Street. The ud|ib/ line has now been repaired. Buokhorn Economic Development District * Over $4 million spent or committed to fund a backbone water & sewer utility line in the Buokhorn Economic Development District to help recruit prospective industries & business considering sites. Craig Benedict present this portion of the PovverPoint slides: Debt Service on Utilities & Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts Article 46 annual funding: $750,000 or 60% of total Promects ^ Buokhorn-W1ebane Phase 2 - Completed ^ Buokhorn EOO Phase Extension - Design 9996 ^ EnoEOOUd|ides — Feasibi|itv ^ Hillsborough EOO Utilities — Conceptual ^ Buokhorn-W1ebane Phase 3 and 4 — Conceptual Economic Development Account (Undesignated Proceeds, Not Debt) • Morinaga Area Infrastructure — Completed • ED Utility Extension Projects — Prospective industry, project specific infrastructure Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane Capital Projects (map) Eno EDD CIP Project Area (map) Hillsborough EDD CIP Project Area (map) Steve Brantley resumed the presentation of the PowerPoint slides. Small Business Loan Fund Article 46 annual funding: $200,000 or 16% of total • Article 46 includes a provision to provide up to $200,000.00 annually in additional lending flexibility to Orange County's existing Small Business Loan Program. • The Program's current loan portfolio is supported by a separate source of revolving funds previously authorized by the BOCC, and no Article 46 monies have been required, to date, to supplement the Program. • There are no loan delinquencies in the Program's activity. Entrepreneurial & Incubator Support Article 46 funding: $100,000 or 8% of total Examples of Use: • "LaUNCh Chapel Hill" innovation center is funded 50/50 through an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County & Town of Chapel Hill. The Interlocal Agreement expires on 12/31/15. • Orange County will contribute $140,000.00 for 3 '/2 year through the initial Interlocal Agreement. UNC & private sponsors also contribute. • At the request of LaUNCh, the Town of Chapel Hill and UNC, staff will soon present to the BOCC a recommended proposal for a 3-year extension of the Interlocal Agreement, at the same annual cost, to continue the County's financial commitment to LaUNCh. Small Business Investment Grant Article 46 annual funding: $100,000 or 8% of total Summary of Grant Awards to date: • Grant program was approved by the BOCC in March 2015. • Subcommittee comprised of Orange County Economic Development advisory board members meet quarterly to review grant applications. • 8 initial grants totaling $61,712.00 were recently awarded in the program's first round of nd application reviews during the 2 Q 2015. • 5 applications were deferred until the second review period • 34 new and/or deferred grant applications requesting a total of$243,541.67 in grant awards have been submitted for the second subcommittee review meeting on Oct. 20, 2015. Small Business Investment Grant Article 46 annual funding: $100,000 or 8% of total Approved Grants: • Carrboro Community Acupuncture (Kim Calandra — business expansion) • Tempeh Girl (Beth May— sales expansion) • Woman Craft (Katherine Palomba — promotional activities) • Trill Financial (Simon Jung — computer testing equipment) • MasterPeace Barber (Mark Holt— repairs to business location) • Regulator Brewing (Anna McDonald Dobbs — marketing) • Seal The Seasons (Patrick Mateer & Will Collins — machinery) • The Accidental Baker (Kevin Mason — new bakery equipment) Agricultural Investment Grant Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total Summary of Awards to date: • Grant program was approved by the BOCC in March 2015. • 7 initial agriculture grants totaling $57,987.00 were recently approved in the program's first quarterly round of applicant reviews. • Grant program is funded by up to $60,000.00 annually from Article 46 proceeds. Agricultural Investment Grant Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total Approved Grants (first quarterly review): • Taylor Fish Farm (Valee Taylor—tilapia fish farming) • BoxCarr Farm (Austin Genke —fencing for milk goats) • ColorFields Farm (Kelly Morrison — greenhouses) • Four Leaf Farm (Tim McCaller— greenhouses) • Smith Family Farm (Dawn Denson —well for irrigation) • Dawn Breaker Farms (Ben Grimes — poultry processing equipment) • Sweet Retreat Orchards (Aniko Redmon — irrigation system) Agricultural Investment Grant Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total New Proposed Agriculture Grants: (scheduled for second quarterly review on Nov. 18, 2015): • 3 new applications have been received. • 6 additional applications are anticipated to be submitted. • $60,000 in total awards is forecast for the upcoming second quarterly review of new applications. • Initial marketing round included radio and newspaper ads; most recent marketing effort had 800 post cards mailed out in Sept. 2015 to County-wide farms & agricultural- related small firms Marketing & Collaborative Outreach Article 46 annual funding: $20,000 or 1.5% of total Examples of Use: • Co-sponsor of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce's Partnership for a Sustainable Community & Town of Chapel Hill to jointly fund a public-private consultant study by the firm "Urban3 LLC". The study created a 3-D mapping of property tax values per acre throughout the Orange County, and the economic development impact of increasing commercial and retail density in an urban area. • Hillsborough Chamber's "Riverwalk Movie Series" sponsor in 2015. • Carrboro Film Festival sponsor. • Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce's "General Member Breakfast" guest speaker series sponsor in 2015. • Orange County Agriculture Summit sponsor in 2015 to provide free attendance & meal for all participants. Advertising, Publishing & Collateral Materials Article 46 annual funding: $20,000 or 1.5% of total Examples of Use: • Participation in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce's annual PRIMETIME Business Expo. • New ad campaign & series of 3 business networking breakfast presentations with the Town of Chapel Hill, assisted by Chapel Hill Magazine, will begin in early 2016. • Ad campaign with WCHL 1360 AM radio highlighting activity by Orange County's Visitors Bureau & Economic Development. • Subscription to Buxton Company's "Scout" software to support retail retention & recruitment efforts. Commissioner Dorosin referred to slide number 15 and asked if these percentages were set in stone. Steve Brantley said the percentages are a Board decision. He said the pie charts, and the recommended percentages, were published and promoted by the County. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the public voted on the percentages or just the categories. Steve Brantley said these were the recommended uses of the funds promoted by the County at the time of the vote, so it would be the public's expectation that the funds would be allocated accordingly. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this was formally adopted in 2012. Steve Brantley said in December 2011. Commissioner Jacobs said this was to be a 10-year plan. He added that at the time, the biggest point was to allocate the 60 percent, and the other percentages were less driving forces. Commissioner Pelissier said the 60 percent was crucial, because water and sewer in the Economic Development Districts (EDDS) was expensive. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is a remaining total left on the debt for the water and sewer infrastructure. Paul Laughton said the total debt for the water and sewer was 20 years, so there is seventeen years to go. Commissioner Pelissier said the 60 percent would stay since there is debt already for the water and sewer in Buckhorn. Paul Laughton said this is included in the CIP for debt service for water and sewer. Commissioner Dorosin asked if it would be possible to change the percentages in the future. John Roberts said the allocation of the funds is at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Rich asked if$40,000 is really being spent on marketing, collaborative outreach, collateral materials, and advertising. Steve Brantley said quite a bit has been spent, but some funding remains. Steve Brantley said he can only show properties to potential industrial/commercial/retail prospects in the EDDs that have existing utilities, or where it can be installed in a timely manner. Commissioner Jacobs referred to slide 18, and asked if the Orange Alamance Water System ever adopted a master plan. Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Jacobs said it would be nice to explain the relationship between Orange County and the Orange Alamance Water System to newer Board members. Commissioner Jacobs said what is being done to serve the Efland Small Area Plan. Craig Benedict referred to the Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane Capital Projects map on slide 18 and explained that Orange County passed an overlay district that allows some conversion to small business along the route 70 corridor. He added that a recent amendment to allow a village overlay is also included in this area. He said the sewer in this area allows for good coverage, giving businesses the opportunity to tie in to the gravity system. He said interest in this area is growing thanks to the available sewer system. Commissioner Jacobs asked Steve Brantley if there is an update about the area west of Efland, going towards Mebane on route 70. Steve Brantley said Economic Development and Planning are working closely together in this area. Chair McKee said there has been some discussion in Efland about possible development, and asked if anything has been formally proposed. Craig Benedict said there are just conversations at this point. Chair McKee said he has heard some chatter about Efland being incorporated, and if so, would Efland have autonomy. John Roberts said if Efland does incorporate, it would have a designated territorial jurisdiction; in which County ordinances would not apply, unless Efland elected for them to do so. Commissioner Dorosin asked if area D on the map has public water and sewer. Craig Benedict said it has some public water and sewer, but some areas are difficult to sewer. He said some lots have septic systems, and some lots are not developed. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the neighborhood north of Efland, called Perry Hill. He said this area is not included in any small area plans and is overlooked. He said this area is in Orange County, and he suggested talking to Mebane about serving this area with water and sewer. Commissioner Rich said she would like information on the Orange Alamance Water System and the rates they charge. Discussion and questions about the EDDs Eno EDD (slide 19): Craig Benedict said development interest in this area is growing. He said there are a lot of mobile home parks in this area. Commissioner Price said this area has been scheduled for development for decades and asked what will happen if Durham says no. Craig Benedict said low water use projects that run on septic systems could be considered. He said such projects would have to meet all applicable standards. He said there are conversations taking place with Durham. Commissioner Price asked what will happen if Durham says no to putting in water and sewer. Craig Benedict said Durham is not saying no, they are saying the cost of$6 million is too high. Commissioner Price asked if Durham does say no, regardless of the reason, what is Orange County's plan for this area. Craig Benedict said Durham agrees that there is still potential, and the City could possibly annex part of this if desired. He said Durham says the current engineering plan for this area is too costly at $6 million. Commissioner Price asked what would happen if Durham is completely out of the picture. She asked if projects would simply have to rely on septic. Craig Benedict said Hillsborough would not be a viable partner for this area. He said Durham is the best partner, and no one is giving up on this district yet. He added that it may be several years out before fruition. Hillsborough EDD (slide 20): Craig Benedict said putting water and sewer under the 1-40 interstate could take eighteen months. He said this length of time is an impediment to attracting development. Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC had a discussion about developing an internal policy for extending water and sewer for economic development purposes. He asked if there was an update on this policy. Craig Benedict said the existing zoning policies lock in how land can be used. He said he can offer a report about what those uses can be. Commissioner Jacobs said he recalled a conversation addressing the concern that Hillsborough will annex land. He said it is important that Hillsborough not use County economic development infrastructure monies to replicate the model of Waterstone, which has too much residential. He asked if there is a formula to apply economic development funds to insure that those funds are used for economic development, and not residential development. Craig Benedict said discussions with Hillsborough about land use have started and that jointly adopted land uses are in place. He said these are generalized land use categories and do not include percentages for non-residential versus residential development. Bonnie Hammersley said staff would work on an internal policy and bring it back for the Board's consideration. Commissioner Jacobs said he remembered him bringing this up last spring and talking about having an internal policy. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the 18-month timeframe of putting water and sewer under the interstate could be reduced, and if the County could act proactively toward this end. Craig Benedict said these discussions have begun with Department of Transportation (DOT). 2. Discussion on Using a County Water and Sewer District as a Mechanism to Provide a Tool to Finance Expenditures in the Rogers Road Area Bonnie Hammersley said in the final report of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood Task Force, dated September 2013, this issue was discussed and directed the Manager to find an innovative approach. She said she has worked with the Town Managers and with Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and has kept the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) in the loop. Bonnie Hammersley said Carrboro will be discussing this issue on October 20, and Chapel Hill has not yet scheduled a discussion. She said the purpose of this evening's discussion is to get direction from the Board of County Commissioners. She said Bob Jessup is here tonight as well to provide information on this issue. Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, said a lot of time has been spent with staff putting together the abstract on this issue. Chair McKee asked if Bob Jessup would please review the information in the abstract. Bob Jessup read the information from abstract: A "county water and sewer district" is a type of governmental entity authorized by North Carolina law. Many counties across the State form these districts as a tool to provide utility service in areas that cannot be conveniently served by existing utility providers. Some counties have had more than five districts within their boundaries. These districts are often created to serve isolated or more sparsely settled areas, but the vehicle provides flexibility to serve any defined area within a single county. Differences Creating a county water and sewer district offers certain flexibilities compared to extending service using current policies and procedures. 1. The District would be able to implement a schedule of rates, fees, and charges independent of Orange Water and Sewer Authority's (OWASA) schedule, which can therefore be tailored to the special characteristics of the District. For example, a District could establish a fee to recover primary infrastructure costs as properties are developed or redeveloped in the future. Similarly, the District could make use of unique technologies and design features that OWASA might not choose to use on a system-wide basis, but might be appropriate for a smaller area. 2. The District may be able to obtain loans and grants for which Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County are not eligible. This would include loans and grants from traditional water and sewer funders, but also from funders more interested in the social justice aspects of the project. 3. Although the District would not have its own planning authority, having the District defined as a separate entity may facilitate coordinated planning and other land use discussions among the relevant governments. Governance, Management and Construction By law, the Board of County Commissioners serves as the District's governing body. Existing law allows for no alternatives to this governing structure. Although the District could bid and supervise the system's construction itself, staff has contemplated that the District would contract with OWASA to supervise and manage the construction of the system. The District could also contract with OWASA to manage the provision of utility service where OWASA would be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the system and for billing and collecting from customers. Procedure to Create the District Creating the District is not procedurally complex. The District could be fully established within 60 days of the Board's determination of the geographic boundaries of the District. Attachment B outlines the procedure for creating the District. Carrboro would need to consent to including within the District any property that is within Carrboro town limits. Financing There are a variety of options for financing the construction of the system and for recovering any loans made to the District. This discussion sets aside the possibility of external grant funding and does not address the on-going fee structure that would be used to pay for regular operations and maintenance. These available tools can be used in combination. Initial Financing 1. The governmental partners could lend or grant money to the District to fund construction. a. The terms of loan repayment, if any, could include provisions for the District to pay interest or for portions of the loan to be forgiven upon defined conditions. b. There are ways that a local government partner could borrow money to be loaned or granted to the District if a partner wanted to explore that option. c. Funds could be either paid to the District up front or on an as-needed basis over the project construction period. 2. The District could borrow money from a third-party lender. a. The District could use most of the tools regularly available to North Carolina local governments, including general obligation bonds, (subject to a vote of the residents of the District) non-voted installment financing (which uses the financed assets as collateral for the loan), or revenue bonds (which pledges net operating revenues of the system as security for the loan). b. Because the District will be a new operating entity with a small scope, a private lender might well ask one or more of the governmental partners to provide "moral obligation" backing to a District loan which is a promise to consider funding a loan payment that the District could not otherwise pay. This would be an annual, "subject to appropriation" promise similar to the County's commitment to its installment financings and limited obligation bonds. Cost Recovery The District would have most of the same tools to raise revenue as other general purpose local governments. • Property tax— a rate would be established annually by the Board of Commissioners. There is no obligation to levy a separate property tax within the District. • Water and sewer rates, fees and charges — including usage fees and availability fees, as well as capital charges for new service • Special assessments against benefitted properties — allows the District to collect funds over a ten-year period. Please note that special assessments can be assessed to recover less than all of the costs of a project, and that installments can, but are not required to, include a component of interest over time. • Sales taxes —the District would not share in sales tax distributions. Commissioner Dorosin asked what would happen if the OWASA disagreed with the County's requests or plans. Commissioner Jacobs said there can be differential rates. Commissioner Dorosin said his concern is that the project is not being put out to bid, and OWASA may not want to do what the County requests. He said having differential rates is a clear advantage. Bob Jessup said OWASA can speak for themselves on this question. He said the second reason to focus on the district was that the defined area may assist the three jurisdictions in doing joint planning. He said the district itself does not have any land use authority. He said the third reason to focus on the district is the idea that the district might be eligible for loan and grant programs that the County is not otherwise eligible for on its own. He said the Department of Agriculture programs are the best example of that. Commissioner Price asked who would write and manage such grants. Bob Jessup said the district would contract that responsibility or assign it to staff. Commissioner Price asked how this responsibility could be assigned to staff, if the County is not eligible for the grant. Bob Jessup said the grant would be awarded to the district. He said who writes it is irrelevant. He said County staff or another assigned group can administer the grant, while the district is considered the recipient. Bonnie Hammersley said the Board could assign County staff towards the district. Commissioner Dorosin said the three advantages are 1.) charging differential rates, 2.) potential developers can help subsidize the cost of the infrastructure, and 3.) eligibility to apply for other funding resources. He asked if Bob Jessup could identify any disadvantages. He said it seems that the setting up of a new administrative structure carries some administrative burdens. Bob Jessup said in practice the Board could include district items on its agendas, or gavel in and out as the district board. He said the burdens are insignificant. He said rather than considering disadvantages, one could consider the alternatives. He said the alternatives would be to do nothing, pay OWASA to do it all, cooperate with Carrboro and create a new water authority, or do it all as a County, but not have access to alternate financing. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board can amend the district. Bob Jessup said parcels could be added as long as noticed and hearings are held. He said the parcels do not have to be contiguous. Commissioner Rich asked if water would still be bought from OWASA, and if so, where would the money come from to cover the difference for the reduced rates. Bob Jessup said that would be a general fund obligation. Commissioner Rich asked if, with this information, it would be possible to split costs with Carrboro to make up the difference. Bonnie Hammersley said if that was the intention, this district could enter into some type of agreement with municipalities about the costs. Bob Jessup said a separate tax rate could be charged in the district, and after a period of development it may be more beneficial to levy a tax. Bonnie Hammersley said this has been looked at as a financial tool, not to be funded by the general fund, but to look at alternate resources for financing to cover the subsidies. Commissioner Rich asked if the Managers' initial discussions only involved the 86 current properties, or if there was an expansion. Bonnie Hammersley said the district has not yet been defined, but it will not change anything for these 86 properties. Commissioner Rich said there was a suggestion in SWAB to do districts, and it was not well received. She said a strong educational element will be important if this process moves forward. Commissioner Price said if the district does move forward, would the Board be able to apply grants to pay for the hook ups for the water and sewer. Bob Jessup said yes, grants can be used to do this if there are such grants available. Bonnie Hammersley said any kind of grants available for this purpose are being pursued, and there would be more access to these funding resources as a "district' as opposed to a "county". Commissioner Jacobs said he has an incomplete recollection of asking OWASA to change its policies on government extending utilities and then the government not being able to recoup the cost of installation from developers. He said OWASA was not interested in changing its policy. Commissioner Jacobs said the County could structure the district so that entities that came in after the district was created would have to reimburse the body politic, not only pay an assessment fee. Commissioner Pelissier said Commissioner Jacobs comments sound familiar but she does not recall the outcome. Commissioner Dorosin asked if permission would be required from Carrboro but not from Chapel Hill. Bob Jessup said that is correct. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Manager could elaborate on her discussions with RENA. Bonnie Hammersley said she shared the draft of the memo in the packet and there were no specific questions. She said RENA was supportive, and if the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to go further, RENA would be involved and may have more questions at that time. She said there was some skepticism but she felt comfortable when she left the meeting. She said the OWASA Board had a lot of questions which will not be answered until it is determined that the process should move forward. Commissioner Dorosin said there must be clear communication and outreach to this community as the proposed process moves forward; emphasizing that the service they would receive would be same as everyone else that is served with water and sewer. Bonnie Hammersley said the issue of rates did come up at the meeting and she assured them that the BOCC would have some flexibility. Chair McKee said he was comfortable with the district idea and lower rates. He asked if the district was set up for the 86 current properties, and there are empty parcels, what would happen if someone built a $500,000 home. Bob Jessup said that homeowner would pay the same gallonage monthly rate, but the upfront capital recovery includes a debt cost; and he said any existing structures prior to today would pay 50 percent recovery costs, but charge others after a certain date a different cost. Chair McKee said he is not comfortable with 20 to 30 new, high dollar homes being built that the County then subsidizes. Commissioner Rich said the district could be extended further to offset some costs. Commissioner Pelissier said even though the same rates would be charged to everyone, it would be possible to do a tiered rate for usage. Chair McKee said he is uncomfortable with straight out subsidies to higher dollar homes. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a similar issue with the Efland water rates. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the debt that this district will incur affects the County's debt capacity. Bob Jessup said it would affect the debt capacity only to the extent that a break-even system is not being run. He said if the capital and operating costs are being covered through the rates, fees, and charges, it is invisible to the debt capacity. Chair McKee asked if Bob Jessup could clarify further. Bob Jessup said this would not be a general fund obligation. He said if the system is operated so that it pays it owns bills, then the rating agencies will not be worried about it. Bob Jessup said the Board has Attachment B, which is the chart of activities for creating a water and sewer district. He said the district could borrow money and pay back funds just like the County. Bob Jessup said special assessments could be used to recover some of the capital. He said this would involve taking a portion of the cost to run the infrastructure past a residence and charge the resident to recover all or a portion of that cost. He said there is a petition process where the landowner can get up to 30 years to pay off such costs. Bob Jessup said the Local Government Commission (LGC) cannot require the district to be self-sufficient. He said the LGC will want there to be some sort of stated policy as to whether the County is seeking a self-sufficient district or a subsidized one. Chair McKee said to direct staff to continue to proceed further with this process. Commissioner Rich said she has many more questions, but is content to hold them for now until the process moves forward a bit more. Commissioner Price asked if an advisory board could be set up, outside of the Board of County Commissioners. Bob Jessup said the BOCC is the governing board, but an advisory board could be set up should the BOCC so desire. 3. Waste Diversion at Special Events and Other Waste Management Related Outreach Efforts Muriel Williman, Solid Waste Education and Outreach Coordinator, presented the following PowerPoint slides: It's not "ZERO-WASTE" but it is...EXTREME WASTE DIVERSION!!! Orange County provides varying levels of waste reduction assistance to public and private special events • Technical assistance (for food waste diversion, source reduction, straight-up recycling; for vendors and organizers) • Containers, collection, equipment and staffing for large events often where we also host an information booth • Loan, delivery and pick-up of recycling and/or food waste containers for events where organizers agree to collect, manage and separate materials • There is no charge for these services Waste reduction resources • Recycling for all— people AND materials • Well established program, universal throughout Orange County • Beverage containers, non-bottle plastics such as tubs, cups and plastic bags • Food waste diversion options o Brooks Contractors for commercial composting, special events, and now public drop-off • Collaborations o Public Works, Parks and Rec, Community groups • Volunteer Care and Feeding of Volunteers • Solicit through press releases, social media, government and university list-serves, high school and scout groups • Save contact info to cultivate experienced volunteers • Send info to the group so they are well prepared • Give goodies • Thank you note with diversion results Small, Medium and Large Events • How many people? Venue footprint? o Volume of waste, scale of operations • How will the waste be managed? • What level of diversion engages the organizer? Just recycling or compost too? • How much help is needed... how much help do they have? • What is being served? • What can be recycled, replaced, or eliminated • Recommend durables first, work backwards Employee Picnic • Trade offs • Reusable, recyclable, compostable • Convenience, cost, availability of resources • Never leave waste alone o MUST have someone minding the trash sort • Level of diversion depends on the organizer, their interest and ability Small Events • 300 people or less. Waste stream is manageable. • Identify sources of waste • First, recommend durables, then a combination of durable, compostable and recyclable. • Just food? Compost at home. All compostables? 4-5 carts. • Catered? Kegs? Bottles? • Fork It Over! 0 200+ stainless steel utensil sets from PTA Thrift and other donors. 0 200+ white cloth napkins o Loan out clean and separated, returned washed and separated. Farmer's Market Harvest Dinner • White linen tablecloths, fabric napkins, durable utensils compostable cups and paper plates. • Easy to compost plates, cups, separate the rest • Has a classy look and feel • Very little trash! Consistently 95%+ waste diversion Medium Sized Events • One - two thousand people; drop containers and collect the "results" • Walk for Education • Ramblin Rose/ Bike and foot races o Ruritan Rodeo/ Car shows • Areas of waste tend to be isolated o Casual finger-foods: Pizza, hotdogs, popsicles = NO serving ware or packaging! TM • Race Without a Trace ; best practices • Electronic goodie-bag • Reusable equipment and banners • Large thermos for paper water cups, not bottles Farm to Fork • Organizer provides ALL compostables to food vendors • One fork/participant • Paper table toppers • Next to no need for sorting Extreme Waste Diversion!!! • 15 pounds "true trash" (plastic film contaminated with food waste or grease) • 960 lbs. food and related paper waster composted • 590 lbs. common recyclables (glass, wine, and beer bottles, paper table toppers, aluminum foil pans, very few plastic drink bottles) • 25 lbs. corrugated cardboard • 20 lbs. of clean plastic film such as ice bags • 1 lb. of wine corks (donated locally for creative reuse) 1611 total pounds 1596 diverted = 99% waste diversion Cost? Yes. • 3 recycling staff$12.50/9 hours = $337.50 • Trucks and containers • Volunteer solicitation and organizing • Composting collection $80 or more Large Events • 10-30,000 people • Mix of food and vendor types • Lots of variables • High volume of waste materials • Vendors MUST be on board + organizer support/enforcement • MOU with organizers • Vendor contract specifies compostable serving ware Hillsborough Hog Day: Most environ-"mental"-ly improved • 0-85% in only 10 years! • Incremental improvements: • Communication, booth placement and amount of material diverted • Vendor contract to use only compostable or recyclable serving ware; enforced by organizer • Organizers paid for compost collection o Composter assured good material with planning and oversight • Now they still compost cooker waste= heaviest Extreme Waste Diversion: 2013 Hillsborough Hog Day Waste Diversion Total garbage, courtesy of Town of Hillsborough: 700 pounds Comingled bottles, cans, and lemonade cups: 11 ninety gallon carts (.445 cubic yards) = 11 x .445 x 225 = 1402 Compostable food and paper waste = 1400 lbs. Used oil 10 gallons, 7.7 lbs. per gallon = 77 lbs. Plastic bags and other film = 15 lbs. Total recycling/composting weight = 2894 Total refuse weight = 3594 Waste diversion rate = 80% Extreme Waste Diversion!!! • Staffed trash sorting stations • Clear signage • Always pair a trash can with recycling bin at least • Collaboration and cooperation Cost? Yes. • Vehicles and containers • Paid staff$12.50/hour 32 hours = $600 • Vendor liaison • Volunteer liaison • Booth assistance • My time o Meetings, logistics, scheduling over 30 volunteers • Brooks: drop-off and collect 16 compact carts on-site = $300 (organizers pay) Benefits? Yes. • GREAT education opportunities on all levels • Community volunteers • Community organizers • Food service folks • Point of contact with residents and visitors • Sponsor status • Saves money o Future lost cost • Models "Going Green" Program-based outreach • Curbside Recycling • Urban— Door to door • Rural-Annual and targeted mailing • Cart info with cart at point of delivery • Collaborate with community groups • Dedicated program managers deal with issues right away • Commercial and MFU Recycling • Door to door • Work with enforcement officers • BARS • Landfill Tours Broad- based outreach • Tabling at local events • Phone calls, emails answered by knowledgeable staff • Informative web page • List-serve: 5,700 + subscribers • Local media contacts in press, radio • Paid advertising • Articles and interviews • Annual "WASTE MATTERS" • County's communication team A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board