Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20090210 Work Session APPROVED 3/17/2009 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 10, 2009 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Valerie P. Foushee, Vice-Chair Mike Nelson and Commissioners Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Geof Gledhill made reference to the trip to Greensboro on February 12th to the solid waste transfer station. He said that, to stay in compliance with the open meetings law, he recommends that someone take charge of the meeting, open the meeting and talk basketball or something else on the way up to Greensboro, and then convene again once they get to Greensboro where everyone who wants to go can be there. Then, the meeting can be adjourned once the tour is finished. Someone would have to take minutes. 1. Parks / Lands Legacy CIP Follow-Up Discussion The Board considered and discussed identified follow-up items from the November 13th and December 11th Board discussions on parks and Lands Legacy projects, as related to the Manager's Recommended Capital Investment Plan 2009-2019, and received and discussed a proposal for a possible public-private partnership at Twin Creeks. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that he took comments from the work session and meeting in 2008 on the CIP and several items were related to Twin Creeks, etc.: 1. Twin Creeks Linear Park and possibly a private public partnership at this site. 2. Potential for Collaboration on Synthetic Turf Field Installation 3. Emerging Issues and future/other topics Issue Paper Linear Park/ Interim Trail to Morris Grove Elementary via Twin Creeks February 10, 2009 Background In late 2008, the Board asked staff to look into a linear park concept using some of the existing funds for Twin Creeks Park from the 2001 Parks and Open Space bond. In January 2009, a letter was received from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) supporting the improvement of a "dirt trail" or path that exists for walkers but not for children on bikes or in strollers. There is no trail, but staff believes what is being referenced in the letter is the OWASA sewer line easement, which was cleared several months back and is just now starting to come back in grass. On January 22nd, several citizens spoke at the Board meeting in support of a trail connecting to the school. It should be noted that the two concepts above may not be the same. A linear park typically connotes a more "finished" feel, with a paved trail over graded subsurface base, landscaped shoulders and benches and/or picnic tables. A natural surface, mulch or gravel trail may or may not involve the same components. The adopted Twin Creeks Master Plan (May 2005) envisions two eventual trails in this area — 1) a trail along the west side of Jones Creek that would be part of a future Carrboro greenway system, and 2) a more formal school-to-neighborhood connector trail (known as the "redline" trail), which conforms to the OWASA easement in the middle of the property - but veers away from the easement at both ends as it moves north to the school, and south towards to the planned park entry road. The Town of Carrboro's Parks and Greenways Master Plan reflects a greenway trail along Jones Creek. This plan was developed prior to Morris Grove Elementary (and the Twin Creeks master plan), and does not reflect a connection there. The Town currently has a consultant looking at connecting existing trails in Lake Hogan Farms through intervening properties to Twin Creeks. Approximately $1.48 million is unencumbered from the Twin Creeks project budget. This includes prior appropriations for the Phase I park project design and engineering, and stabilization work to the farmstead approved in June 2008. Some of the remaining design and engineering funds could be redirected to a trail project (if changes to the approved project contract scope can be negotiated), possibly increasing the available funds. The total amount includes funds added to the Twin Creeks project budget from the Soccer Superfund. Approximately $625,000 of that amount is included in the $1.48 million figure above. The Newly Proposed Trail on Twin Creeks Property A trail on the Twin Creeks property to connect from the property's southern terminus to Morris Grove Elementary within the sewer easement would span approximately 3350 feet (or 2/3 mile). A trail that conformed to the Twin Creeks master plan "redline" trail would run west of the Jones Creek sewer easement on the southern potion of the site and then east of the easement as it nears the school. A small portion of the middle of the two trails are in the same location, but most of the "redline" trail would be outside of the sewer easement. The total distance of the two trails is nearly identical. The attached map shows these different trail concepts. There appear to be two basic options for construction of such a trail either as requested by the schools and/or proposed by Commissioner Gordon (pending Town of Carrboro review and agreement). 1. Option 1 - An interim natural surface or aggregate trail that could provide for bike and stroller traffic until a more permanent trail is constructed. 2. Option 2 - A permanent 10-foot greenway trail, probably paved. It should be noted that both trails will require a pedestrian bridge crossing over Jones Creek. A permanent structure would likely be a substantial bridge, potentially in terms of both span and thus cost. The Town's greenways plan envisions a greenway trail to serve both transportation purposes as well as leisure use, and discussions will be needed with the Town as to whether an interim bridge is acceptable. Town ordinances (and FEMA regulations for stream crossings) may preclude the possibility of an interim, less-costly bridge — more information on this possibility will be provided as it becomes available. The long-term vision in the Town's plan for this trail is one that requires grading, paving, subsurface base and other work. This, plus the bridge, will make the permanent version (Option 2) a more costly measure — although the trail surface selection will affect the degree of that cost. It is possible that Option 1 could be at least partially constructed by staff and volunteers (with coordination and oversight), with perhaps an Eagle Scout or community project for the bridge - if this is permissable. Even a rough estimate of the cost for this option is difficult to determine, pending clarification from the Town of Carrboro on the standards and grading that would be required (and whether other federal floodplain certifications may be needed for the bridge). The cost will greatly hinge on what type of bridge and associated grading is required, if this version would be permitted in the sewer easement and stream buffer at all. Option 2 would require construction by a professional firm, grading and subsurface work and edging along the trail, and a more permanent bridge. If the surface is a paved trail, this type of trail on the Twin Creeks site would cost an estimated $850,000 (including the permanent bridge spanning the floodplain as a substantial part of the cost). If the permanent trail could be a natural or fine gravel surface instead, this could reduce the cost. There may also be some potential for community or volunteer assistance in this project, although at a considerably lesser degree than the interim trail option. Park benches and trash receptacles placed along the route would add to the cost— but these are not substantial costs and may be accomplished for less than $10,000. Note: With the installation of the sewer line and the possible willingness of the Town to consider a greenway in the sewer easement, an opportunity now exists to revisit whether the "redline"trail and a greenway trail inside the sewer easement are both needed, or whether one will suffice. Preliminary conversations with OWASA staff indicate the potential for location of the trail within the sewer easement, pending further discussion, with the understanding that provision for repairs to the sewer line will be needed - which could impact or damage the trail. Key Issues, Questions and Potential Benefits There are three basic issue categories that must be addressed to implement this idea: 1. Connection/Parking Issues 2. Cost/Town Approval Issues 3. Operation, Maintenance, Security and Safety Issues Questions / Issues Lack of Connection to South/Parking —The County's Twin Creeks property does not connect to Lake Hogan Farms. Any trail would need to traverse and have the legal agreement of other properties (as shown on the attached map). The Town of Carrboro indicates they are currently engaged in greenway planning that could result in discussions with these property owners, but the timing of this is not currently known. Until there is legal access and a trail on one of these properties, any trail built on the County's land would terminate onto private property and not connect to the south. A possible interim solution could involve a looped end to the trail at the southern end of the Twin Creeks site, where benches and perhaps signage might be situated, with trail users then returning to Morris Grove School along the trail. It is assumed that any parking needed for the trail use would come from the school parking lot. Cost/Town Approval Issues — Sufficient funding may exist to construct the linear park as a 10-foot paved trail with span pedestrian bridge on the Twin Creeks site — and still allow for the potential use of Soccer Superfund monies elsewhere. As noted above, a paved version of a permanent greenway trail is estimated to cost approximately $850,000. However, the Town of Carrboro will need to answer several questions in order to evaluate this further. • Will the Town insist on this type of paved trail, or allow for the less-expensive Option 1 (an interim trail in the easement and stream buffer)? Either option may require waiving some stream buffer rules and other ordinance provisions (and perhaps federal floodplain exemption). • How much additional grading and subsurface work will be required (which significantly increases costs) for a non-paved interim trail? Will the trail be required to be ADA- accessible (this affects the trail surface decision)? • Will the Town allow for an interim (Eagle Scout-type) bridge in the short-term? • Can this be accomplished in advance of the future approval process for the park? An interlocal agreement for this project may be an option. Operation, Maintenance Security and Safety Issues —An assessment will be needed to determine whether sufficient staff exist to monitor and maintain the trail on the Twin Creeks site. This assessment would also need to address the operational costs and expectations. Additionally, the trail is considerably removed from Old 86 and is in a wooded, undeveloped natural corridor—with no road connections at present. Will this create safety issues? Finally, a trail in the sewer easement would link in the middle of the site to the old farm road, which leads to the barn and outbuildings (where stabilization work is underway). Will this create security concerns for the buildings, or liability and increased vandalism potential? Possible Benefits Showing Results from the 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond —As recently noted, Twin Creeks is the one project from the 2001 bond where no activity is underway toward construction or opening of the facility (there is work underway on building stabilization). Constructing a linear park and trail within the sewer easement would show results from the bond funds, likely within the currently available funds. Coordination with the Master Plan —A trail in the sewer easement is not inconsistent with the master plan, but was not envisioned to be the main connection to the school. However, the sewer easement may have presented an opportunity to revise the plan. If a trail is not within the sewer easement, the northernmost and southernmost segments of the trail must be designed in a way mindful of the future school facility and park construction on the site, to ensure the trail is not located in a way that constrains future plans. Town and/or Community Participation —The construction of a permanent trail (designed for transportation as much as leisure) connecting Lake Hogan Farms to Morris Grove Elementary is a broader function than serving Twin Creeks Park and educational campus, and more a pedestrian corridor serving a larger northern Carrboro community need. Should the Town participate in the cost and construction of such a greenway? Should the Town maintain and operate the trail? Additionally, there appears to be community sentiment toward volunteer assistance in the trail construction, which could lower the project cost. Possible Options for Linear Park 1. Ask Town to Allow Approval and Construction of an Interim Trail (using existing funds — Option 1)? 2. Pursue Permanent Greenway Project (perhaps with Town financial assistance requested - Option 2)? A recommendation on the type of trail surface for both options will substantially affect cost, and help inform discussions/negotiations with the Town. "No-Build" / Deferral Options 3. Construct Original Trail (Redline Trail) at a Future Date as Shown on Master Plan (when full funding exists)? 4. Defer Project to Phase I of the Park (when additional funds exist)? Commissioner Gordon asked about the most viable connections from the park south. Dave Stancil said that Carrboro has hired a firm, Greenways, Inc., to look at making the connection from the existing greenway to this point. One alternative would be to connect to some property that Orange County owns, which is five acres from Lake Hogan Farms. The second alternative would be to use the existing Lake Hogan Farm Road. Dave Stancil continued explaining the issue paper. Commissioner Hemminger said that she likes the idea of the paved trail but there is a safety issue. She liked the way that they moved toward the foot path near the stream because it is already cleared. She said that she would love to see some kind of trail there, and she would lean towards the paved one because it would be used more, but she worries about the safety issue and children walking by themselves in a secluded area. Dave Stancil said that signage would be a key issue, especially if there was not a trail that connected. Dave Stancil answered several other clarifying questions. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would have concerns about having something other than a paved trail that far away because of things such as emergencies, etc. Commissioner Gordon said that it sounds like a paved trail would be preferable and there is money for this. Dave Stancil said that the preliminary estimates are $850,000. There is $1.4 million remaining in the Twin Creeks account. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thought there was agreement that the Saponi name would continue to be used, as well as Twin Creeks. It is disappearing from the documents. Dave Stancil agreed. Commissioner Jacobs said that Commissioner Gordon was on the master plan committee for this and he would like to share the master plan with the new Commissioners to give them the background. This should be done with all plans. Commissioner Jacobs asked about the five acres that Orange County owns and Dave Stancil said that it is forested and was dedicated as open space by the Fox Meadows subdivision. He asked about the bridge and if it would have to be constructed, and staff answered that it would probably be a prefabricated bridge. Chair Foushee said that she is in favor of the paving the trail in the linear park and the Board concurred. Dave Stancil said that he would come back with a proposal on how to proceed. He then went through the private/public partnership issue, as shown below: Project Prospectus prepared for Orange County Twin Creeks Family Recreation Center Executive Summary Purpose To build a sport, recreation and child care/activity center utilizing a private/public partnership between Orange County and Recreation Partners on the County owned Park Property known as Twin Creeks. This could be a combination outdoor and indoor facility. Background It is assumed that there is a strong demand for quality recreation, child care and activity based services for the growing needs of Orange County residents. Outdoor fields can support some of this demand but there remains a need for seasonal infrastructure as well as providing a safe and environmentally protected environment for the needs of young children. The indoor facility also contemplates a hardwood gym for related activities under the assumption this type of space is also in scarce supply throughout Orange County. Recreation Partners (RP) has a proven track record operating the Triangle Sportsplex without seeking additional County funds/subsidies to sustain operations. RP has a long history of being NC's leading provider of quality recreational sports and programming in a family friendly, safe and clean environment. Programming includes early childhood development programs, youth and adult training and leagues across multiple sports. RP facilities offer a wide range of sports activities: Soccer programs for youths starting at the age of eighteen months and adults, lacrosse, basketball, volleyball and baseball programs. After school, summer camp and intersession programs provide an active alternative to traditional day care programs. Project Scope RP Deliverables: • 60,000 Square feet in-door Turf, Court and child camp facility. • Building constructed by a RP partner builder of commercial buildings in the Triangle for over 35 years. • Building, Up fit and Sports Equipment provided as a complete Turnkey. County Deliverables: • Orange County to subsidize $175,000 Year One Start-up Costs. Project fully breakeven Year two onward. • Contribute land to the project. Optional Synergies: • Potential further synergy with RP providing all outdoor programming (it is projected that if the Outdoor programming were to be part of the public/private partnership that the incremental revenue from the outdoor fields to the venture would make the project breakeven at year one and not require the $175,000 first year subsidy. • Potential to add a seasonal outdoor ice rink as a major Orange County destination attraction. This could be operational by Fall 2009. Location Twin Creeks Park. The indoor facility use would be approximately five acres on the Park site plus shared parking. Residents would have access to state-of-the-art in-door recreation amenities in their own community creating a less intensive use than previously planned for the site. The proposal is to place a 60,000 sq.ft. concrete tilt up building with an attractive façade and to provide all required fit up and sports infrastructure equipment, all as a turn key recreation facility. Since the majority of the use is after school and on weekends this use encourages less traffic impacts at peak hours. We would expect additional synergies to be created with the County's planned outdoor park facilities on the same site, including the feasibility of RP managing the recreational facilities (soccer fields and baseball/softball) to maximize staffing and site synergies. Economic Impact New employment with RP 6- 8 Full Time 40 Part Time 45-60 Contractor Employees Estimated Annual Payroll for Twin Lakes $250,000 Estimated Annual Contract Employee Compensation $250,000 Estimated Capital Investment $4.85million funded by RP secured by long term lease with OC Economic Impact of Special Events and Tournaments (optional depending on traffic and parking constraints) (does not reflect restaurant and other spending) Spectator Hotel Participants s Rooms Duration Adult Soccer Tournaments 300 600 200 3 days Football Combines 200 400 200 6 days Soccer District Tournament 500 2000 500 5 days Independent Youth Soccer Tournaments 750 2000 500 3 days Soccer/Basketball Development Camps 300 600 300 3 days Regional or Sectional Soccer Events 400 2,000 500 5 days Private Soccer Camps 400 400 n/a 5days Private Basketball Camps 400 400 300 5 days Benefits to the Community Fitness and Health — Activity and sport related programs for all ages, ranging from teaching children good fitness and health habits to developing plans for adults for an active lifestyle and healthy aging and longevity. Public/private partnership —for local residents to use the facility and use of County owned land for recreation First class recreation, child care and sports competition opportunities —After school care, summer camp and early childhood development based Lil Kickers soccer and Lil Dunkers basketball. Soccer, basketball, lacrosse, volleyball, ball hockey, baseball, flag football; Tumble Bees intro gymnastics and cheerleading, triathlon, and disabled sports. Opportunities for partnership with US Paralympics, USA Baseball, US Soccer, local Basketball Camps and Clinics, Soccer Tournaments, Kids Gym and Gymnastics programs, Football Combines, Cheerleading Camps , and local Colleges. Issues/Concerns 1. Traffic • For similar facilities, we have performed in depth studies through Kimley Horn and Associates as to traffic patterns. For all non tournament activities, traffic is uniform, steady and limited to activity participants. Hourly participation is generally limited to those engaged in the specific activity and if there are spectators, they typically travel in the same vehicle as the participant. Allowing for all those engaged in hourly participation, plus those coming and going, the maximum amount of traffic per hour for the indoor facility is 120 cars. • If traffic (and parking) is a concern, the only activity in excess of the above comes from tournaments where there are additional spectators. Tournament activity replaces the normal hourly activities at the indoor center and is only contemplated if the community desires this type of activity for the economic impact on neighboring restaurants and hotels or for the high community profile from hosting such events. However it does not significantly impact the revenue for the facility since the time allotted can be substituted for routinely scheduled sports and recreational activities. If the community is concerned about the extra traffic, or if the facility has parking limitations, approval for construction of the facility can restrict use for tournaments (and no outdoor seasonal rink). 2. Parking • It is assumed that the existing site plan allowed for parking for the contemplated four outdoor fields. The revised plan to include the indoor field replaces two outdoor fields with two indoor fields. While an indoor field significantly extends the possible uses and season length of fields, its existence just substitutes the already required parking for outdoor use. However, it is conceded that the indoor facility has more flexible usage and will attract additional participants and therefore based on Kimley Horn traffic analysis for similar facilities, maximum parking required for the indoor facility is 125 paces. As noted, since parking was already required for the outdoor field, it is estimated that the incremental parking for changing the use from outdoor fields to indoor is a modest 65 parking spaces. It is offered that the incremental cost of this parking can be absorbed in the overall site and construction costs as presented. Timeline TBD. If approved Construction could commence Q 3 2009. Q3 2010 Occupancy Commissioner Gordon asked where this would be and Laura Blackmon said that it would be where the two southernmost soccer fields are. This is very preliminary. It would be a multi-functional facility. Commissioner Hemminger said that this is exciting, but she is worried about the infrastructure costs. Clarifying questions of the County Commissioners were answered by staff. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the MI Homes proposal was in abeyance and Dave Stancil said yes. He asked if Carrboro had any kind of "exactment" that it makes from a developer to provide this kind of infrastructure. Dave Stancil said that there was a bond provision, but he does not know if there is some flexibility prior to pursuing the subdivision. Commissioner Jacobs said that if Orange County was going to be providing infrastructure and then a developer would come in and put in a subdivision and not contribute, he would like to talk to Carrboro about some way to recoup some of the public cost from the developer. Another way to look at it would be that the recreational partners could put in the road and then Orange County could pay them back over the course of time. He said that CHCCS did want a gymnasium on this site, but Carrboro was not interested in participating financially. This would be a way to meet a need articulated by the school system. He said that the worst thing he could say about this is that it would be a traffic problem. He wants to be up front about the traffic issues and how to address them. Commissioner Gordon said that she sees this proposal as creating a regional destination. She said that the realities of developing this are that road improvements would not be a reality for a long time. She asked about the pros and cons of the Millhouse property as a possible location. Commissioner Pelissier said that she does not know the history of this project. In addition, she feels uncomfortable because the master plan says one thing, and this proposal is something not in the master plan. She said that no one has raised the issue about daycare in this proposal. Laura Blackmon said that the purpose of this item tonight was to see if there was interest in a more formal presentation later. Commissioner Nelson said that the road issue is one of the key things here and Carrboro's interest is to keep two-lane roads, and he is worried that this would be walking into opposition with the Town of Carrboro. He said that the other question is about privatizing recreation in Orange County and how far the County should go with this. He does not want to back into it, but he wants to talk about it. He asked if staff had talked to anyone in Carrboro yet and Dave Stancil said that he mentioned it today when he met with Carrboro staff, but there has been no reaction. Commissioner Gordon said that the master plan should be discussed further before moving forward with this. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with the concern about privatization. She said that she would want to know what type of jobs this project would create. She wants to talk about privatizing in general. Commissioner Jacobs suggested getting a copy of the master plan, inviting John Stock to come and talk to the Board, and following up with pros and cons of privatization as well as the pros and cons of different sites. Chair Foushee asked if the Board wanted a presentation from John Stock and Recreation Partners and there was Board consensus to do this. Commissioner Gordon said to get Carrboro involved in this very early. Commissioner Jacobs said to ask the Manager to send a letter to the Carrboro Manager about this, inviting the Board of Aldermen to the meeting. Commissioner Gordon said that the master plan should be revisited to do this and Geof Gledhill said that the master plan is not a regulatory master plan. Dave Stancil pointed out that the Millhouse Road property is in the Rural Buffer, so anything that happens there would not be on the public sewer system. Lori Taft then spoke about the potential synthetic turf at Cedar Falls Park or Smith Middle School. Issue Paper Synthetic Turf Soccer Field Development at Cedar Falls Park or Smith Middle School February 10, 2009 Background In late 2008, the Board asked staff to look into a synthetic turf soccer field project using the remaining soccer superfund money from the 2001 Parks and Open Space bond. In 2007, members of the soccer community brought the idea of synthetic turf fields to the attention of the board and staff was asked to look into the possibility of such a project at the Smith Middle School field(s.) At that time there was a potential private partner who had offered up to $600,000 in assistance. Additional sources of funds for the estimated $1.624 million dollar (two field) project had not yet been identified. Estimates for just the one municipal field were $856,000. The potential partner wished to have usage fees waived in exchange for their donation. The Town of Carrboro is responsible for issuing permits and collecting fees for field usage at Smith. The project, within the Towns jurisdiction, would also have been subject to the Town CUP process and the likely requirement for engineering drawings and water quality studies. In February of 2008, the Board of Aldermen decided to take no action on approval of the requested fee waiver, waiver of applicable town fees and general approval of the project. This decision was brought to the attention of the BOCC and served to effectively stop work on the project at that time. Since 2007, the funding offered by the private partner has been designated for use elsewhere. No other source of funding has been identified. Continuing Discussions with Carrboro about the Smith Middle School project. Renewed interest may have arisen among members of the Carrboro Town board and Town staff. In fall 2008, at a meeting of the Board Chair, Vice-Chair and Manager with the Mayor and Manager of Carrboro, the potential for revisiting the concept of synthetic turf at Smith field was discussed, and the Town expressed willingness to receive another presentation and reconsider the topic. If the Town is willing to enter into a partnership with the County in some way, the idea could be further developed. Providing a Soccer Superfund Grant to the Town of Chapel Hill for conversion of softball fields at Cedar Falls Park to a synthetic surface soccer field. Providing the remaining soccer superfund money to Chapel Hill for this project would fall in the category of matching grants within the BOCC approved Soccer Superfund Policy and Guidelines. Technically, the Board would have to return the funds to the Soccer Superfund, and then allocate them to Chapel Hill. If the $625,000 remaining funding were made available, Chapel Hill would be required to match this funding. The majority of additional guidelines or conditions within the Soccer superfund Guidelines document could most likely be met if an application were to be submitted by the Town. Key Issues, Questions and Potential Benefits There are three issue categories that must be addressed to implement this idea: 1. Available funding 2. Town Approval Issues 3. Health Issues Questions / Issues Available funding - What would the source of funding be for the amount above remaining soccer superfund money ($625,000) needed for the Smith option? ($250,000-1 field or $1,050,000-both fields.) Can the grant match be met by the Town of Chapel Hill for the Cedar Falls option? The 2009 PARTF grant application deadline has past. Chapel Hill proposes to submit an application with the next cycle. Town Approval Issues - Would the County receive assurance of a commitment to timely development of the project by either jurisdiction? Would permitting and required studies add to Orange County's cost? In 2007 Carrboro was reluctant to cover/waive required fees and studies for the Smith project. Chapel Hill proposes engineering be completed in-house and states that they are not required to pay their own fees. Health/Safety Issues - Last spring, an alarm was raised throughout the country regarding certain health risks associated with synthetic turf products. A study of several fields was conducted in New Jersey, and two were found to be potentially hazardous due to the age of the fields. Over time, the recycled rubber tire infill used breaks down into smaller particulate matter, which can be inhaled or ingested. In addition, a study conducted by the Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station concluded that the tire crumbs release chemical compounds into the air and ground water. Many studies conducted by the CDC and others have determined that inhalation or ingestion of this material is dangerous. High levels of lead were found in the older fields studied, which if inhaled or ingested can cause adverse health effects including developmental delay and behavior problems. The CDC also stated "The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur." They also added that "At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf." The June 2008 CDC Health advisory does not recommend discontinued use of synthetic turf facilities, but instead recommends precautions for the field manager and the user. Alternative infill options have not been found. The use of recycled tire material appears to be standard in the industry. Each manufacturer claims that its product is "safe" and installations continue to occur all over the country. UNC recently replaced the turf on its Fetzer Field with a product containing recycled rubber tire infill. It seems likely that these products can be safely used with responsible management and with a commitment to replacement close to warranty expiration, which is typically 8-10 years. Continued use often occurs well beyond the expiration of manufacturers' warranty periods. It would seem prudent that testing should be undertaken at this point to determine whether the infill products or the turf itself is breaking down to the point that it might pose a health hazard. Replacement costs typically run about half of the cost of the original installation. Potential Benefits Showing Results from the 2001 Parks and Open Space Bond —As recently noted, the Soccer Superfund is one of the projects from the 2001 bond where funding remains unspent. A portion of the funds was allocated and has been spent on the West Ten fields. Using the remaining funds for the most viable project that is closest to shovel ready would benefit the soccer community. Possible Town Involvement - Either project would require full approvals and partnerships to some degree with the respective town. Possible Options for Remaining Soccer Superfund Money 1. Provide a Soccer Superfund Grant of $625,000 to the Town of Chapel Hill for the Cedar Falls project. The transfer of funds would not occur until the conditions of the grant application as determined by the BOCC were met. 2. Allocate $625,000 for the development of one or two synthetic surface soccer fields at Smith Middle School. Determine source(s) of additional funding required to complete the project. 3. Reserve remaining Soccer Superfund money for Twin Creeks or the next soccer project ready for development. Commissioner Nelson asked about a turf field versus a Bermuda field in terms of cost and Lori Taft said that a turf field would cost $850,000 and Bermuda would cost $500,000. Commissioner Hemminger said that schools are going to turf fields and Durham is converting to Astroturf. She said that the turf is much more flexible in terms of use. She pointed out that Chapel Hill was willing to waive all the permitting fees and Carrboro is not. She said that the soccer entities are interested in talking about this. She would like to see artificial turf on a field. Commissioner Jacobs said that there was a soccer symposium task force that came up with a report that had parameters. He said that this is background for this discussion and he does not understand why these documents are not in the packets. He said that he was confused about page 19 and the costs. There are a lot of different numbers. He suggested getting some dependable numbers. He said that either option could work. He said that Carrboro approached the County Commissioners about the Smith soccer fields, and he suggested articulating a proposal or at least some presentation and then deciding whether the same thing should be done for Chapel Hill. Commissioner Gordon said that this is a great need that has been articulated for a long time. She wants to get something substantive out of this. Commissioner Nelson supported Commissioner Jacobs' proposal about how to proceed. He wants to put something specific in writing to both towns and have the Manager and a Board of County Commissioners' member to be there to answer questions. Chair Foushee and Commissioner Pellisier agreed. Dave Stancil summarized page 22, which listed emerging issues. Issue Paper Emerging Issues and Future/Other Topics February 10, 2009 During the Board CIP discussions in late 2008, there were several other emerging issues, CIP additions and future topics for discussion that were identified by the Board. These include: 1. Timing in the CIP of Bingham Park and Hollow Rock/New Hope Preserve Some Board members expressed interest in revisiting the timing of these projects in the recommended CIP. Moving the projects up will require exchanges with other capital investments in the Plan. 2. Funding Source for Future Farmstead Stabilization and Renovation at Future Park Sites At a previous work session, some Board members identified the need to look at the appropriate funding source for future stabilization and renovation work at the Twin Creeks and Blackwood Farm future park sites. 3. Prioritization of the Mountains to Sea Trail for Lands Legacy Program Agreement on the trail corridor, and prioritization of the MST project for the Lands Legacy Program is needed, and will be programmed for a future Board discussion. 4. Future Use of Remaining Lands Legacy Bond Funds The possibility of additional flexibility in the use of Lands Legacy 2001 bond funds (if issued as alternative financing) was noted by Board members at a recent meeting. This discussion may also include consistency with the 2001 bond educational materials. This topic would also be scheduled for a subsequent worksession. 5. Wording Changes to CIP Items At the two discussions in late 2008, the Board asked that two CIP line items, "Reserve for Future Land Purchases" and "Mountains to Sea Trail" be adjusted to read "Lands Legacy/Reserve for Future Land Purchases" and "Lands Legacy/Mountains to Sea Trail," respectively, and that the project description reflect the change. These changes have been made to the Recommended CIP and will be reflected in future editions. 6. Discussion of the New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm Master Plan The Board asked for this master plan, which has been received but not discussed, to be brought back for work session discussion. The item was tentatively slated for this work session, but has been shifted to a subsequent work session due to the timing and complexity of the other topics. The mast plan will be scheduled for a future Board discussion. 7. Appropriation of Remaining (leftover) Funds at 2001 Parks Bond Projects Remaining funding is expected to exist for the Smith Middle School (field lighting) project and perhaps other sites, where final project construction has or is expected to come in under budget. Discussion of appropriation of these funds would be scheduled for a subsequent Board work session, once exact amounts are finalized. Commissioner Gordon asked when the CIP would be discussed, because there are some projects ahead of this. Laura Blackmon said that the one-year CIP would be adopted when the Board adopts the budget. Chair Foushee said that it is imperative that the County Commissioners adopt a ten- year plan as soon as possible, with the understanding that it is a plan and that things can be rearranged. Commissioner Nelson said that he was ready to vote on the CIP 13 months ago and Chair Foushee agreed. Discussion ensued about bringing the Ten-Year CIP back for adoption. Laura Blackmon said that she would bring this back to the Board for discussion on March 5th 2. Creation of the Department of Environment Sustainability and Public Assets Laura Blackmon said that the Manager is in charge of operations, but it is the Board of County Commissioners that has authority in the creation or disbanding of departments. This discussion began last fall about the potential for reorganization and the development of a new department. She said that when she was hired, the Board of County Commissioners made a point of letting her know that reorganization was a priority. The proposal is to create a Department of Environment Sustainability and Public Assets. The organizational structure would include the following current existing departments or functions: • Engineering (part of the County Manager's office) • Environment and Resource Conservation (including parkland) • Public Works • Components of Purchasing and Central Services • Soil and Water District (as an affiliated agency) She said that she is looking to create a continuum of responsibility from the time that land is purchased until it is developed for whatever purpose. This would not be an addition of staff, but only a reorganization. The memorandums that explain this proposal are shown below: Memorandum TO: County Commissioners From: Laura Blackmon, County Manager RE: Proposed Reorganization Plans Date: February 10, 2009 One of the Board's clear directives when I was hired in November 2006 was to streamline County operations in a manner to promote efficiency and maximize utilization of limited resources. The maximization of limited resources is even more critical and urgent now than it was in 2006. In fact, in recent worksessions and retreat settings I have highlighted my concerns that our resources are so constrained at this point we may face reduction of services in order to meet your budget goals. The reorganization being proposed for the departments associated with the management of our public assets, both physical and environmental was not conceived lightly and I believe keeps faith with the Board's 2006 directive to me. Understandably, however, the recommended change raises concerns that previously established goals and objectives, particularly in the area of the environment, will face competition for resources within the new structure and will not be met in a manner consistent with the Board's desire or the public's expectations. Ironically, the thinking that lead me to the recommendation is based on just the opposite assumption—the reorganization will provide additional resources to accomplish these goals more expediently and will promote the saturation of environmental Initiatives deeper into the daily operations. This reorganization does not seek to change the service or mission of the individual parts but rather to change the functional structure within which it operates to one that will more effectively serve their customers, whether public or internal to county operations. Further, I believe the new functional structure will be critical in my efforts as Manager to develop succession planning within County operations. There is a gold mine of historical perspective among the current department directors and staff who join forces under this reorganization plan. Some of the key staff are within five-seven years of retirement, so the timing is critical to develop a sustainable structure for the core functions represented in this grouping. I continue to believe it is a plan that when fully implemented, will better serve our residents and will consistently use their tax dollars more wisely. The attached memorandum from the November 18, 2008 agenda materials will provide more detail of the proposed reorganization. My staff and I stand ready to discuss this more fully with the Board on February 10. In the meantime, I ask that you seriously consider my recommendations and I ask for your support of this initiative as I strive to establish functional structures which will enable us to move the organization forward more strategically. Memorandum TO: County Commissioners From: Laura Blackmon, County Manager RE: Proposed Reorganization Plans Date: November 18, 2008 There is probably not a governmental entity in existence that is not considering ways to streamline operations and utilize limited funding to the max. Since November 2006 when I was hired as the Orange County Manager, I have explored options for more efficient county operations. The County's departmental organization was noted as an area where changes and consolidation could bring greater efficiency and better service delivery to the residents. Such changes are already in effect in the Financial Services Department, which consolidated Budget, Finance and Purchasing; and in the merger of GIS into Information Technology and Land Records into the Tax Assessor's office. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline my recommendations which continue reorganization of departments and functions which acquire, develop, manage and preserve the County's many and varied assets. Mission of Proposed New Department Discussions among department representatives of the ERCD, Engineering, Public Works and Purchasing and Central Services Departments over the past several months have yielded a consolidation plan that would carry out the following mission elements: 1. Acquire, maintain and sustainably manage the public assets of Orange County government, including lands, facilities and grounds, and vehicles. 2. Promote and coordinate efforts for the conservation, preservation and stewardship of the County's environmental and cultural assets, including land resources, water resources, air/climate and agriculture. 3. Monitor and assess the County's progress towards sustainability, both in terms of internal County operations and for the County as a whole, developing recommendations, implementation measures and reports (such as an Annual Sustainability Report Card) to address needs. 4. Oversee, implement and coordinate County goals for environmental protection and natural and cultural resource conservation, including periodic assessments of environmental protection efforts (such as the State of the Environment report and open space reports). 5. Plan, conduct and implement the construction of all County capital projects and facilities, including project administration and management. 6. Develop, implement and coordinate a County deconstruction program to ensure its long-term viability and continued marketability of the recovered inventory. 7. Acquire land in keeping with adopted plans for conservation of natural and cultural resources (Lands Legacy), as well as for County facilities and grounds. 8. Maintain a comprehensive database (GIS and tabular) of natural and cultural resources in the County, as well as all County facilities and landholdings. 9. Provide staff support to advisory boards and commissions and ad hoc committees related to natural and cultural resources and facilities planning.' 10. Conduct capital needs assessments for County government and serve as the coordinator of annual County Capital Investment Plans, including evaluation and creation. 11. Provide assistance to other County departments and agencies in assessment and evaluation of capital planning. 12. Provide technical expertise and data to the public regarding the natural and cultural resources of the County and mechanisms of conservation. 13. Monitor and develop programs for energy efficiency and reduction of energy use. 14. Assure protection of the County's assets through development and implementation of effective risk management programs. 15. Assess trends and impacts of new natural and human-made phenomena, such as climate change, on the County's environment and facilities. 16. Provide customer service to all public needing assistance in the areas of operation of the department. Organizational Structure The new department will have both an internal and external focus of responsibilities and activities — an innovative hybrid of the conventional "line" and "staff" departmental organization. It would be administered by a director and deputy director, with associated administrative support. The organizational structure would include the following current existing departments or functions: • Engineering (part of the County Manager's office) • Environment and Resource Conservation (including parkland) • Public Works • Components of Purchasing and Central Services • Soil and Water District (affiliated agency) Functionally, the envisioned organization may fall into multiple work groups or divisions as follows: • Capital Projects (including design and engineering) • Cultural Resources (including parkland and agriculture) • Natural Resources • Public Works • Risk Management • Sustainable Government • Soil and Water, as an affiliated agency Capital Projects and Public Works will involve largely internal functions of capital facility planning, engineering, construction management, and the management and maintenance of existing facilities, including: 1 At present, this would include the following standing committees—the Commission for the Environment, Agricultural Preservation Board, Historic Preservation Commission and Intergovernmental Parks Work Group. Special ad hoc committees for certain projects (such as new facilities and parks) would also be staffed from this department. • Construction Management • Design and Engineering • Sustainability (County Government focus) • Capital Investment Planning • Facility (buildings and grounds) Management • Motor Vehicle Fleet Management and Maintenance The Natural and Cultural Resources work groups will involve functions that are largely external oriented and focused around these non-structural resources. This includes programs for the planning, conservation and/or preservation of natural and cultural resources in the County (programs that relate to both publicly-owned or privately—held resources of this type), such as: • Biological resources (natural lands, prime forest, flora and fauna) • Water resources (ground water and surface water) • Air quality and climate • Agricultural preservation • Cultural, historic and archaeological preservation (including scenic resources) • Stewardship and management of natural lands and open space lands (Including parkland and nature preserves) • Environmental education and sustainability (community-wide focus) Soil and Water, an affiliated agency with similar focus, would also be administered through the Natural Resources work group. Risk Management will allow the design and implementation of programs to protect County assets more comprehensively. Greater coordination in this area will allow a more direct correlation between cause and effect of actions and will prompt the development and implementation of programs and policies to help reduce the County's exposure both in liability and worker's compensation claims. The department will include a Sustainability Coordinator who will work in both internal and external areas — such as implementing internal `green government' measures and assessing and identifying community sustainability programs. The Department Director would report to the County Manager and oversee and administer all divisions and functions of the department, and initially would provide direct supervision of the Public Works and Capital Projects work group. The Risk Manager and Sustainability Coordinator would also report directly to the Department Director. The Deputy Director would report to the Department Director and assist in administering all functions and divisions and would provide direct supervision to the Natural and Cultural Resources work groups and Soil and Water. Refinements to the organizational structure are still being discussed and finalized. Materials provided to the Board in early 2009 will detail the finalized organization structure and seek approval for the realignment of positions needed to carry out the reorganization plan. Location With the exception of Public Works the new department would be located on the third floor of the new office building scheduled for completion in late Spring-2009. Public Works operations staff would remain at their current location on Highway 86N, Hillsborough. Soil and Water, an affiliated agency to the new department, would continue to occupy space at the Planning and Ag Building on Revere Road, Hillsborough. Name of Department Several names for the department have been suggested. Those most descriptive of the function include: • Department of Public and Environmental Assets (PEA) • Department of Public Assets and Environmental Stewardship (PAES) • Department of Environmental and Public Assets (EPA) • Department of Environment, Sustainability and Public Assets (ESPA) Staff considers the latter name to be most reflective of the responsibilities vested to its care and therefore recommends the Department of Environment, Sustainability and Public Assets (ESPA) as the department name. Reorganization Timeline November 18, 2008 BOCC considers reorganization plan January 2009 Re-organization plans finalized February—March 2009 Position realignment approvals considered by BOCC January—June 2009 Staff prepares and presents combined budget for new department July 1, 2009 New Department effective date Conclusion While this is the most aggressive and unique reorganization plan I have put forth, I believe it will prove to be one of the most advantageous to both the County organization and its residents. The size of the department (approximately 50 employees) will provide considerable flexibility to accomplish departmental goals and will provide new opportunities for the staff to cross-train in specific functions which will not only enrich the employee's experience but will provide greater sustainability within County operations. It will provide a structure to engrain environmental issues to the cellular level of county operations and will overall create a more cohesive and responsible way to maintain all of the County's assets, physical, cultural and environmental. Further, the hybrid nature of the department will allow a broader base of resources to address the external customer needs as well. Although we may not see immediate cost savings through this model, it provides the opportunity to minimize future cost increases by allowing maximization of current resources. I believe the melding of these specific functions allows each of them to evolve to the next stage of their mission and will truly embody the belief that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is my hope the Board of Commissioners will share in this vision of the future and endorse this reorganization plan, which can become a model for other governments seeking ways to more effectively and efficiently use their resources while providing an excellent level of service to the community. She said that she asked Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones and Dave Stancil to be here tonight to discuss the background of this proposal. She said that she expects this to evolve. She is looking at the big picture and the opportunities to evolve. Dave Stancil and Pam Jones gave some background on this proposal and how it came about. Dave Stancil mentioned the potential partnership with the Soil and Water District. This is looking very promising. He hopes to bring back a memorandum of agreement for this partnership. The next step is for the Board to approve the creation of a new department and start working on a budget and making decisions on the office space. Commissioner Nelson made reference to page 3 of the memorandum and the issue of key staff being within 5-7 years of retirement. He said that he does not know how this reorganization helps to address this issue. Laura Blackmon said that the County has a lot of departments with 3-5 people, with little room for advancement. One of the benefits would be to create a deeper organization with a depth of over 50 employees. Commissioner Gordon made reference to three memoranda sent to the County Commissioners by advisory boards that oppose this reorganization, and she specifically cited the language in the memorandum from Allan Green, which is included below. To: Orange County Commissioners After reviewing the reorganization proposal at our November APB meeting I wrote the following memo to the BOCC expressing my concern that there did not appear to be a sufficient justification for implementing the proposed reorganization, nor a well-thought out plan for ensuring that the critical mission objectives of the ERCD would be effectively covered. (Obviously, every department has a critical mission but my particular focus is the ERCD). Since then further discussions with Dave Stancil and some of you have confirmed that a detailed justification and plan for the reorganization does not exist. Until you all are comfortable that: 1. you understand the need for and benefits of a reorganization; 2. detailed plans for meeting (and improving) on current missions are in place; 3. there is an accountability structure for making it happen; I once again strongly recommend that you take no action to implement the proposal. Thank you, Allan Green February 10, 2009 David, As presented, the reorganization proposal appears to have minimal benefit for the Environment and Resource Conservation Department and the mission of the Agricultural Preservation Board. No cost savings are outlined, and the overall objective of "streamlining" processes has little to do with the ERCD. All we can say about the proposal is that it does represent change, but whether the change will be beneficial or not- for ERCD or any other area of county government- is mere conjecture. Most troubling to me is the dilution of focus, effort, and the goals of the ERCD that will inevitably occur if this reorganization is completed. Conservation programs are very different from public works, social services, or administrative departments. Historically, ERCD exists entirely because the more traditional branches of county government were not able to provide the focus to the environmental priorities that Orange County residents want. Eliminating ERCD as an independent - and when necessary, adversarial voice will seriously compromise its effectiveness and the influence of the APB. As one who recently joined the APB to have a more visible impact on the preservation of agriculture and farmland in the county, this is somewhat discouraging. In the proposed organization the ERCD mission will have to compete for funding and attention with the short- range needs for public services. In my experience, this is a losing proposition and future Orange County residents will suffer. I do not believe the County Commissioners should lightly abandon this clearly expressed priority. Two careers ago as a senior manager with IBM. I was often asked to participate in audits of organizations that were not meeting their financial or business goals. As I review the reorganization proposal I am left with a number of (to me) serious questions. What is the overriding driver for change? Where is the list of organizational problems and failures that are being addressed? Where are the specifics of the solutions provided by the reorganization? How are the missions of each department going to be enhanced by the reorganization? What are the staffing impacts (who leaves, who stays)? What roles are eliminated or created? Where are the cost savings? What alternatives have been considered? And, lastly what are the measures for success and who is going to be accountable for them? Unless there is a document available that includes these specifics (which I have not seen, obviously) I recommend that the commissioners defer consideration of this reorganization proposal until one is. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Allan Green November 28, 2008 The other two memoranda, one from the Agricultural Preservation Board and the other from the Commission for the Environment, are incorporated into these minutes by reference. Commissioner Gordon said that she is concerned that the ERCD function will be diluted and not enhanced, and there are no cost savings. She has many concerns with this proposal and does not support it. She believes these functions belong in at least two departments. Commissioner Yuhasz said that if this department is for the management of public assets, then he does not understand why the parks are not included in this. He said that there has been concern about ERCD being merged into another department and losing its focus. He said that folding ERCD could prove that this department may be the dominant department. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with many comments from Commissioner Gordon. She said that it seems that the real issue is trying to get people to work together. She has some serious reservations about this reorganization proposal. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager for responding to the directive from the Board and for looking at promoting efficiencies. He appreciates the willingness of the department heads involved to discuss a new structure. He said that he agreed with Commissioner Gordon. He said that he sees two groups of like functions — ERCD, Soil and Water, Cooperative Extension, and Cultural Resources, which he believes should include the Arts Commission and the Library. He also sees a group that is Purchasing and Central Services, Public Works, Engineering, and Transportation. He said that Transportation no longer belongs in Aging. He thinks that it goes great with Public Works and Central Services. He sees two departments that would be a streamlining and an aggregation of like functions. He also thinks that the leadership in setting the tone should come from the top and not from a department. This means from the Manager's Office. He said that the Environmental Responsibility Coordinator should report directly to the Manager, and then the two of them would tell other departments about the vision and how it would be articulated. He said that it would have been nice to have the Environmental Responsibility Goals in this packet. He thinks that this is a good effort and he sees some like functions aggregating, but this is not how he sees them coalescing. Chair Foushee said that she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs and it seems clear that there are two distinct departments in this group. She suggested having this come back to the Board in some other fashion. Commissioner Jacobs said that Parks and Recreation has been left out of this and they need to consider whether Parks and Recreation is one department and whether every single government in Orange County needs to run its own recreation department. He thinks that it is worth mentioning to other governments that this is another possible area of financial savings and efficiency. The same is true with Public Works. He encouraged staff to have a conversation about this. Commissioner Nelson said that he does not agree with the Arts being in one of the groups. Commissioner Gordon said that the question is where to go from here. She would like to talk more about the Board's priorities first and then see how these priorities would affect the departmental structure. Laura Blackmon made reference to Transportation and said that it is going to end up being regional. She said that she is hearing from the Board not to bother with this and to look at other options. Chair Foushee said that she thought that the Board said that it wanted to see another configuration. Commissioner Foushee said that we had reached the 10:00pm adjournment time and asked the Board's pleasure. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to adjourn at 10:00 PM. ALL THE OTHER ITEMS WERE DEFERRED: 3. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Planning — BOCC 2009/2010 Priority 4. Alamance County/Orange County Boundary Line NCGS Survey 5. County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions Assignments Valerie Foushee, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board