Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-10-2016 1 APPROVED 12/13/2016 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Work Session November 10, 2016 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dorosin COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy 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 7:05 p.m. Chair McKee congratulated Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Rich on their re-elections and the newest Commissioner-Elect Mark Marcoplos. He also acknowledged that this would be Commissioner Pelissier's last work session as a Commissioner since she is retiring. Chair McKee asked if Board members wanted to speak about the recent election. Chair McKee said Commissioner Dorosin was unable to attend tonight's meeting. 1. Discussion of Outside Agency Funding Target and Funding for Non-Profit Capital Needs BACKGROUND: The FY 2016-17 Approved Budget includes funding awards for 55 outside agencies totaling $1,176,763. This amount includes $83,530 for 12 new or previously unfunded agencies. Each year, Outside Agencies submit funding applications to the County detailing program requests. These programs are reviewed by Advisory Boards and scored on a scale of 0-100 based on the following criteria: • What is the program's Mission? • Who are the program's Customers and what does the customer value? • What are the program's Results? • What is the program's Plan for implementation and improvement? As a part of the budget development process, Outside Agencies applications and scorecards are provided to the County Manager to assist in recommending decisions as part of the Manager's Recommended Budget each year. The Board of County Commissioners then approves final funding amounts as part of the Budget Adoption process in June. Performance Agreements are executed for each funded Outside Agency, and funding allocations to the agencies are provided on a quarterly basis throughout the fiscal year. The Finance staff has surveyed other local governments in North Carolina to review other funding target options for Outside Agencies. 2 The following are potential funding formulas for BOCC consideration: • Percent of Budget • Fixed Dollar Amount • Incremental Unit of Tax Rate • Dollar Per Capita The staff presentation at the meeting will provide information on: • Outside Agency Funding as a Percent of County Budget • Outside Agency Dollar Requests versus Dollar Approved • Other Potential Funding Formulas The County currently provides funding to Outside Agencies for operating expenses only. At the request of the BOCC, a review of options for capital requests is attached (Attachment A) and addressed in the staff presentation. These potential capital funding options include: • Construct a building, and lease it long-term • Make a restricted capital grant • Make a multi-year grant that could be used for lease or loan payments • Fund a loan-loss reserve to back loans to the outside agencies Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Presentation to Board of County Commissioners Outside Agency Work Session November 10, 2016 Outside Agency Time Frame (graph) Bonnie Hammersley said there had been some concerns raised by outside agencies about the application. She said meetings were held over the summer between the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro with the County, and the application was updated and approved by all involved, including the outside agencies representatives. Bonnie Hammersley said she will invite outside agencies to do a presentation to the Manager, prior to the Manager's recommended budget process. Commissioner Price asked if the Manager would meet with the applicants after applicants have met with the advisory board. Bonnie Hammersley said yes. Commissioner Price asked if this would be open to all groups, or just those recommended by the advisory board. Bonnie Hammersley said this option will be open to all outside agencies. Gary Donaldson resumed the presentation: Outside Agency Funding as a Percentage of the Budget (graph) Outside Agency Requests vs Approved (graph) Other North Carolina Governments Funding Formulas ➢ Percent of Budget • $112,146,742 x 1%= $1,121,467 3 ➢ Previous Year's Allocation as Base • FY 2016-17= $1,176,763+Growth Rate ➢ Incremental Unit of Tax Rate • 1 Cent on $16,773,580,000 Tax Base = $1,677,358 ➢ Ten Dollars Per Capita • $10 x 141,354 (2015 Population)= $1,413,540 ➢ Fixed Dollar Amount • Subjective Commissioner Pelissier asked if the growth rate is in the budget, or in the revenues received. Gary Donaldson said both of these would be good indexes to use. He said the growth revenue rate from last year to this would be about 2-3%. Bonnie Hammersley said historically there has been about a 3% growth rate in revenues. She said there are other growth rate options, as well. Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, resumed the presentation: Potential Capital Funding Options ➢ Construct Building, and Lease Long-Term ➢ Make Restricted Capital Grant ➢ Make Multi-Year Grant for Lease or Loan Payments ➢ Fund a Loan-Loss Reserve to back Loans to Outside Agencies Fiscal Policy Consideration ➢ Draft Fiscal Policy: • The County may allocate an amount of public funds up to one percent (1%) of the total County General Fund Budget Appropriation Less the Education Appropriation for the purposes of funding outside agencies that benefit the community. • Outside agencies must provide the requisite financial, organization and project information to be eligible for funding. Funds shall be appropriated for public purposes. • Requests for funding will only be accepted during the County's annual budget preparation process. All complete applications will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for funding consideration and adoption in June of each fiscal year. Bob Jessup provided the memo below, and how some of the ideas could work. Memo below from Bond Counsel, Bob Jessup: Orange County—capital funding for outside agencies There are a variety of ways in which the County could provide capital funding for outside agencies if it decided to do so. In each case, the legal basis for our approach represents a combination of the statute that allows the County to contract with private entities to carry out work that the County could carry out itself(Section 153A-449), and the statute that allows the county to enter multi-year continuing contracts for services (Section 153A-13). In many ways, these approaches mirror approaches used for affordable housing programs in which the units will be privately owned. Build a building, lease it out long-term The County would build a building for use by the agency. The County would continue to own the building. The County could either pay cash for the building or undertake an installment financing for the building (whether the financing would qualify for tax-exempt financing or would require more expensive taxable financing would have to be determined at that time). The lease 4 could either require a cash payment or provide that the use of the building is part of the County's consideration for the services to be provided by the agency. Matters of maintenance, taxes and insurance would also have to be resolved in connection with the lease. The construction of the building would likely be subject to the construction and bid laws otherwise applicable to County projects. As an alternative, the County could establish a nonprofit corporation of its own to undertake the financing and construction, although the lenders would still look to the County to make the loan payments, and the construction and bids laws would likely still apply. Make a restricted capital grant The County would use cash on hand to make a larger than usual grant that the agency could use for a capital expense. The performance agreement would restrict the use of the funds for the planned capital expense, and would extend for a term commensurate with the size of the grant. Because County money would be the intended source for the payment of the construction costs, the construction of the building would likely be subject to the construction and bid laws otherwise applicable to County projects. Make a multi-year grant that could be used for lease or loan payments The outside agency would contract for a capital project, and the County would enter a multi-year grant agreement that was sized to provide for the agency's lease or loan payments related to the project. Fund a loan-loss reserve to back loans to the outside agencies. As the County has done with its business loan programs, the County could fund a loan- loss reserve to support loans incurred by the outside agencies. Considerations for all approaches The function to be served by the outside agency must be a function the County is authorized to provide directly. Each arrangement should be supported by a contract with the outside agency that specifies the work to be done by the agency. If the County uses a multi-year grant approach, then the contract should extend for the term of the grant. If the County uses a lease approach, then the performance contract should extend for the term of the lease. There should in all events be some level of proportionality between the funding from the County and the service by the agency. In undertaking any program of this sort, the County should build a strong record documenting the public benefit expected from the arrangement. To the extent the County views the project and benefitting agencies as enhancing employment and business prospects in the County, the County would be well-served to also follow the statutory procedures (including public hearings) provided for in the business incentive statutes. A big issue at looking at capital funding is you have to look how much of a commitment they would want to do. Chair McKee asked Bob Jessup what would happen if the County had a five-year contract with an agency for a building, and in year two the agency stopped performing, and the County had to evict the agency. 5 Bob Jessup said the County can only enter into a contract/grant if the agency promises to provide certain services; if the agency fails to do so, then the County should not renew the grant. Commissioner Rich asked if there are nearby local governments that help agencies with capital expenses. Bob Jessup said he was not familiar with any in the area, but he can research this if the Board would like. He said there are governments that run business incubators, or have agreements with providers for affordable housing, both of which are forms of capital funding. Commissioner Jacobs said the County helped Orange Enterprises (OE) with their building, and wondered how this was possible. Bob Jessup said he recollects that Orange County paid for the building through financing for a wide variety of projects, and did the payment for that particular project all in the first year. Commissioner Jacobs said the County also did capital funding for the Red Cross at Timberlyne years ago, and he thought that was more of a grant. Commissioner Rich referred to the LAUNCH program, and said the County is only giving money for operations. She asked if LAUNCH wanted to buy the building they are leasing, would this be possible. Bob Jessup said yes, depending on how the County decided to participate. Commissioner Rich said many of the outside agencies provide services, which the County is unable to. She asked if there is a difference between helping the agencies with capital needs versus taking on that agency's service as a County department. Bob Jessup said the County is only allowed to contract with a non-profit if the non-profit is providing a service, which the County could also provide. Commissioner Pelissier said Orange County must be authorized to provide the service to fund the outside agency, and she asked if there is an example of a non-profit whose activities would not be authorized for the County to provide. Bob Jessup said there could be an organization that provided help to home schoolers or charter schools, and the County is not authorized to help. Commissioner Pelissier asked if most non-profits are providing services that the County would be authorized to provide. Bob Jessup said yes. Chair McKee referred to the charter school example, and said the County does not fund capital for charter schools. He asked if the County were to fund a non-profit that supported charter schools, would the County be outside its purview. He asked if the Board were to make a policy to provide capital for outside agencies, it seems only fair that agencies supporting charter schools have equal ability to apply for funding. Bob Jessup said such a non-profit could ask for consideration under the policy, but Orange County is restricted by not being able to grant them funding because this is a service Orange County cannot fund, thus the County cannot help them with capital funding. Commissioner Rich asked what would happen if a non-profit was looking for funding from different elected bodies. Bob Jessup gave an example, and said the County could do a capital grant and let the organization pick up the operational costs. Commissioner Price asked if the County has been giving money to outside agencies for leases. Bonnie Hammersley said 501c-3s usually show a budget. She said in this last budget, the Board waived the lease for Piedmont Food and Agriculture Processing Center (PFAP), and the County is not charging PFAP rent in the building that the County owns. Commissioner Price said many non-profits ask for funding, and many organizations will not fund brick and mortar projects for non-profits. She said she struggles with constructing a building for an organization, with all organizations rivaling each other. 6 Commissioner Burroughs said she has worked for non-profits for years, and she said there are foundations that only pay for services. She said she feels this is also all that the County should fund. She said non-profits are set up to meet needs, and many times needs change. She said she is not interested in giving outside agencies capital funding. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Burroughs. She said she asked the Board to discuss this item because, during the budget season, there was a non—profit that met with every elected official individually for capital funding. She said she did not like these one on one discussions, but felt the Board should discuss openly. She said offering funding for capital needs would open too many floodgates, and governing bodies do help with operational funds for many of the non-profits in their area. Commissioner Jacobs said he is not as averse to doing a capital project if the County is paid back in a fairly short time. He said he would be willing to consider this on a case-by-case basis. Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been looking for information on OE, and in FY 1998- 99 there was a line item for contributions to capital campaigns, such as the Red Cross. She said OE was a different project. Commissioner Pelissier said there should be a policy instead of ad hoc decisions. She said many agencies would request funding, if offered. Chair McKee said he had the same concern, and his preference is to have a policy that the County does not fund capital projects for outside agencies. Commissioner Price agreed that there should be some kind of policy. Commissioner Burroughs said she talked with Margaret Samuels at OE, and that her recollection was that OE had been a part of Orange County government years ago, and was spun off. Commissioner Jacobs said sometimes there are exceptions to the rules. Chair McKee said policies can be changed or amended. Commissioner Rich asked if the County has ever had any policies that included exceptions. Bonnie Hammersley said not currently, but this is certainly possible. Commissioner Rich said OE and PFAP seem to be existing exceptions. Commissioner Jacobs said the definition of an exemption could be when a non-profit starts as a part of Orange County government, and then spins off. Chair McKee said the Board does not vote at work sessions, but he hears a consensus to bring this back as a proposed policy. Commissioner Rich asked if staff could do some benchmarking research with other governing bodies. Bonnie Hammersley said staff would draft a policy of what is funded, with exceptions noted. Chair McKee said the discussion can now turn to the slide funding formulas. He asked if there is a Board preference on how to look at funding. Commissioner Rich asked if the current policy is 1%. Bonnie Hammersley said that is only the practice, not the policy. Bonnie Hammersley said this year funding was tied to Board goals, and the funding coincidentally ended at around 1%. She reviewed the various funding scale options available to the Board. Chair McKee said the simplest option is to stay with a percentage of the budget, with the option to find additional funds elsewhere in the budget. Commissioner Rich said the Board had discussed wanting to increase funding to non- profits during the budget process, and asked if this would fit into a 1% model. Chair McKee said each year that he has been on the Board, monies have been given to non-profits from the excess fund balance. 7 Commissioner Rich said she would like to avoid the uncomfortable position of having to choose whether to give the extra fund balance to the schools or the non-profits. Commissioner Burroughs said the full funding option is dicey, and most non-profits ask for the amount that has been previously received. Commissioner Burroughs said she likes a formula, and she does not like the horse- trading for non-profits that is done during the funding process. She said a percentage makes sense, and she felt 1% is too low but 2% is too high. She would like something around 1.25%. Commissioner Jacobs said it is good to have a target for budget purposes, and starting at 1% allows the Board to go up, if necessary. He said that kind of control with flexibility has worked well with schools, and would work well with the non-profits. Commissioner Price said using a percentage of the budget as a target would work well. Commissioner Price said she is hoping that the Manager's meeting with the non-profits prior to the budget discussion would provide more insight into their individual requests for funding. Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been looking at how to provide a more streamlined process for the Board. She said the process of evaluating the applications is good, as well as having advisory boards to look at the applications; but face time with these requesting outside agencies has been missing. She said staff would also like to implement having the outside agencies meet with the Board at a separate work session, rather than during the intent-to-adopt- the-budget work session. Commissioner Pelissier said she liked that idea. She said she did like the "horse trading" discussions because the Board sometimes learns new information, and sometimes changes have occurred from the application submission in January and the Board budget process in June. She said she likes the percentage of the budget, as it is the cleanest option. Commissioner Rich said she also liked the ideas of the Manager/non—profits interviews; the Board meeting with the non-profits during a work session; and the percentage of the budget option. She said she would want to insure, however, that there is flexibility, and the percentage should be a target. Commissioner Price agreed. She said Durham's process uses interviews, where the applicants can talk with the elected officials. Commissioner Price asked if, in the past, have the applicants been able to meet with the evaluators. Bonnie Hammersley said no. She said one of the first questions in the interview will be, "has anything changed since you submitted this application?" Commissioner Jacobs referred to the funding chart, and it looks similar to the school funding methodology. Gary Donaldson said there was a question about funding differences, and it was $50,000 more in outside agency funding this year than last year. Commissioner Burroughs said she strongly supports the agencies speaking to staff, but not to elected officials. She said she will advocate for a rounding up to 1.25 as a percentage of the budget for outside agencies. Commissioner Jacobs said in relation to what the staff recommends, he does not always feel like he has enough information about the applicant; either why they did not get funded or got meritorious recognition. He said this information would be helpful. Commissioner Rich said she would also like to hear about duplicate services. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board must be clear on what it is being asked to fund or not to fund. Chair McKee said for staff to bring them back a policy for a percentage of funding 1-1.25 %. He said the Board liked the new process and having a separate work session for discussion. 8 2. Orange County Property Naming Policy Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the background information below: BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2016 Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier petitioned that the Orange County Property Naming Policy be discussed at a BOCC work session. Specifically, Commissioner Pelissier as well as other Commissioners have requested that the naming policy discussion include clarification on the following issues: • Under what circumstances should a property be named? • What can be named? • Should a county property be named for a living person? • Definition of renaming a property? She said attached to the abstract are the three (3) previous abstracts to amend the policy, a list of County owned properties that have been named for an individual, and a benchmark analysis of organizational naming policies in the area. Commissioner Price said some schools were left off of the listing. Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, said these buildings are not owned by Orange County. He said the facilities listed are ones that are deeded to the County. Commissioner Pelissier said her main interest is on 2.1.3 on page 13 of attachment one, which states: official names or titles for property belonging to the County shall only be changed by the Board of County Commissioners as it deems appropriate. She said this should be more thought out than "deems appropriate". She said the Board should be judicious in re-naming a facility, and there should be concrete reasons that mean something. Commissioner Pelissier said there should be a larger community consensus in re- naming a facility, and a more inclusive process such as a public hearing. Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Pelissier as related to public input. He said the issue of naming brings up other issues and it can get"sticky". He suggested the language of "as it deems appropriate, after public input." Commissioner Burroughs said, in her experience, a committee is appointed for new buildings to address this process from the beginning. She said she preferred not naming a building after a living person, unless there are extraordinary circumstances and a public discussion is completed. Commissioner Price said if the Board wants to honor someone, then do so and do not wait until they pass away. She said she is in favor of naming buildings after living people. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price. He said Commissioner Dorosin sent in an email, in which he also agreed. He said the recent re-naming of the farmer's market after Congressman Price was a good example, as he was able to attend the ceremony and appreciate the recognition. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to name buildings after things other than people. Commissioner Pelissier said people have approached her asking why the Board re- named a facility after David Price, and she is adamant about re-naming a building without a public process. Commissioner Rich referred to page 13, section 2.1.2, and asked if rooms, within buildings, are currently being named. Commissioner Jacobs said yes, at the Orange County Library. He said a room was added after the library was built, for a collection of books that a resident donated. 9 Commissioner Rich said Commissioner Dorosin said he did not want naming or re- naming to be always attached to monetary donations. Commissioner Rich said she does not have a problem with naming buildings after living persons, and would want to re-name only if a building does not have a real name. Commissioner Burroughs said to do a public process of naming/re-naming, and for staff to talk with the school systems, which have a process. She said to broaden the policy for the use of names. Commissioner Jacobs said an example would be if the Friends of the Carrboro Library raised $50,000, and asked for a room to be named for them. He said he does not see anything wrong with that, and it may encourage more participation. He said there are reasons to have exceptions. Commissioner Jacobs said this policy came about after the County recruited Sports Endeavors to help pay for the soccer complex. Commissioner Price referred to 2.1.5, and suggested removing the word "monetary" and replacing it with "significant contribution". Chair McKee said that may remove the impression that the County is selling naming rights. He agreed with Commissioner Price's suggestion. Commissioner Rich said it is tricky, as one does not want to be discouraged from giving money. Chair McKee referred back to 2.1.3, and asked if the Board wants to change this. Commissioner Jacobs said the wording of"after a process of public participation" could be added. He said these buildings belong to the public, not the County. Chair McKee said there is always the danger of naming after a living person, in that changes occur. Bonnie Hammersley said staff will bring this topic back soon. 3. Boards and Commissions Discussion BACKGROUND: The Orange County Board of Commissioners, at several of its past meetings, has identified specific topics related to Boards and Commissions that the Board wanted to further discuss. Attachment A provides excerpts from approved sets of minutes on the Board's prior discussion of the following items: • Vetting of Applicants; Recommendations/No Recommendations from Advisory Boards • Filling of Board Vacancies: Statutory and/or Board approved positions • Advisory Board Meeting Times • Advisory Boards- Size of Boards - 9/20/16 discussion Attachment B contains a departmental Training/Orientation Overview of the various Orange County Advisory Boards and Commissions a. Vetting of Applicants; Recommendations/No Recommendations from Advisory Boards Discussion Point: • Does the Board want to pursue a vetting process or continue the process as is? Chair McKee asked Thom Freeman, Assistant to the Clerk, if he had heard any complaints from applicants about the process. 10 Thom Freeman said he has not heard any complaints, but he has noted suggestions in meeting minutes, from other board members on advisory boards, that appointees should be more experienced. Chair McKee asked if there are any concerns about the applications with extended questions. Thom Freeman said people fill them out, and he has seen that sometimes answers can be incomplete. Commissioner Rich asked if the boards with additional questions could be identified. Thom Freeman, said Economic Development, Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), ABC Board, Board of Adjustment, Equalization and Review (E&R), and the Planning Board. Commissioner Price said sometimes a vacancy needs filling and there is no recommendation from a board, but other times there is a recommendation and the BOCC ignores it. She said she wonders what kind of message this sends, and if recommendations can be ignored, why ask for them in the first place. Commissioner Rich asked if recommendations are sought. Commissioner Jacobs said there is a difference between not following a recommendation and ignoring one. He said with some boards more information is needed on the applications, as some applicants apply to multiple boards at one time that seemingly have little connection. He said perhaps, with some boards, applicants should only be able to apply to that one board. Commissioner Jacobs said restricting applicants to one board had been considered for those boards that handle monetary issues. He said this issue was never resolved. Commissioner Pelissier said she and Commissioner Rich talked about having a committee conduct interviews of applicants for certain boards, but this came up and the Board did not want to do it. She said perhaps there could be committees of two to three to review applications, and interview applicants of certain boards. Commissioner Pelissier said if staff sees that a person did not complete an application, which has more extensive questions, to send it back to the applicant. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board should consider adding extra questions for the Board of Adjustment application. Commissioner Price said there is no consistency within the boards; some boards recruit for particular positions, but most boards choose whatever process they want, such as the Chair/Vice Chair reviewing applications. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Commissioner Price could define consistency. Commissioner Price said consistency in who does the vetting for the applicant recommendations. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not have a problem with that. He said when he was on the OWASA board years ago he was interviewed by two commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs said it should be noted that Commissioner Dorosin advocated for not vetting anyone. Commissioner Jacobs said he does not agree with Commissioner Dorosin for the statutory boards, quasi-judicial boards or those with fiduciary responsibilities. Commissioner Jacobs said when he looks at who is applying, he looks at the various demographics of the board: gender, race, geographic variety, etc. He said he does not make his decisions solely on this, but he does looks at the balance. He said the Board should not put someone on a board based on demographic profile. Commissioner Rich said she agreed that some boards need to be vetted, but she does not want it to be more difficult for residents to apply. 11 Commissioner Rich said sometimes she calls some applicants, and she encouraged others to do this. She met with the E&R Board chair who wanted more vetting of applicants, and perhaps John Roberts could create questions for this board's application. John Roberts said he does not mind being involved with the quasi-judicial boards. He said these boards have guidelines to follow, and he is working with Michael Harvey to set up a training session with the Board of Adjustment. He said he did the same with the E&R Board, and can do this on a regular basis. Commissioner Price said in addition to the training, there should be more qualifications for the quasi-judicial boards. Chair McKee said there are three levels of boards being discussed: quasi-judicial, a subset of non-quasi-judicial that are more involved (ABC Board, OWASA, E&R, Planning, etc.), and then the rest of the boards. Commissioner Price said she is talking about quasi-judicial boards that do not report back to the BOCC. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board of Health and Department of Social Services are statutory boards that do not have to report back to the BOCC, but do make policy decisions. Commissioner Rich asked if the Board feels that repetitively putting the same people on boards is acceptable, as well as people serving on more than one board at a time. She said there are people in the applicant pools, but the same people continue to get appointed. She said Commissioner Dorosin expressed not liking the process of repeatedly appointing someone to a board. Commissioner Price said the policy is that one can serve on two boards, and one task force at one time. Commissioner Rich said sometimes it feels that the BOCC are appointing the same people. She said there must be more people that are interested in serving. Commissioner Jacobs said this happens when there is an unspoken political benefit to making that person happy. Commissioner Pelissier said the same people tend to be reappointed because they are known and are good "board" people. She said there is a level of comfort with known people. She said there needs to be a vetting process for important boards versus just the advisory boards. Commissioner Pelissier proposed a two-step process: 1. Have some serious vetting process, like a sub-committee, to review applicants and to make recommendations for the quasi-judicial boards, and those that make significant decisions. 2. The other advisory boards could have some other process. She said this may require more active involvement from the BOCC. Chair McKee asked if she is suggesting an interview process or a more thorough review of all applicants. Commissioner Pelissier said interviewing every applicant would be an ominous job, but there could be a group that whittles down the applicants, and then conducts a phone interview, or something similar. Chair McKee asked if the sub group would be two commissioners. Commissioner Pelissier yes, or perhaps John Roberts could interview applicants for the quasi-judicial boards. Commissioner Price said it seems like this is being done at times, but it should be a formalized process. Chair McKee said he sometimes supports a known person, simply because he knows them and their commitment level. Commissioner Pelissier said she likes having recommendations from advisory boards, and would like to receive them from all advisory boards. 12 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board of Health has a sub-committee that does its vetting. Commissioner Burroughs referred to Commissioner Dorosin's input and said she thinks vetting is useful, and boards should be strongly encouraged to look at diversity, when vetting. Commissioner Jacobs said there is a historical process of the Planning Board not offering recommendations, and he would like to keep this as is. He said this has been done because the BOCC is meant to be doing the vetting with these types of boards. Chair McKee asked if this is a default policy. Commissioner Jacobs said yes. Chair McKee said that is fine with him and suggested that the Board of Adjustment also not give recommendations. Thom Freeman said recommendations are not received from the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment and the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard). Chair McKee asked if it is acceptable just to limit not receiving recommendations to the Planning Board. Commissioner Jacobs said yes. b. Filling of Board Vacancies: Statutory and/or Board approved positions Discussion Point: • How would the Board want to proceed with vacant positions with statutory or Board designated positions? Chair McKee said he has concerns about this issue, and he does not like to fill vacancies just for the purpose of filling them. Commissioner Price said if there are applicants, then the positions should be filled, unless there is a clear reason not to appoint someone. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a benefit to holding a seat open, or is it better to fill the seat and have a full board. Chair McKee said if you have one vacancy on a 7-member board, and it is an at-large seat, he does not have a problem filling it. He said he does have a problem with filling a seat that is a designated position with someone who is not qualified (such as does not live in a particular district). Commissioner Rich asked Chair McKee if he feels there is a limit to how long a seat should be left open. Chair McKee said he does not know, but if there is a designated seat then it should remain open, if it does not adversely affect the board. He said six months did not feel like enough time, and one year feels too long to wait. Commissioner Rich said she does not like leaving open seats. Chair McKee said the Board as a whole probably agrees with Commissioner Rich, but he does not. His argument is if it is a designated seat, it should not be filled with someone who does not fit the designation. Chair McKee said he also objects to having one appointment recommendation on the abstract, and then the Board filling other seats on the fly. Commissioner Jacobs said he has no problem with filling seats, except when the reasons why some people are not recommended is not known to the BOCC. Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC could give notice to advisory boards that if they are making recommendations, but not filling all of the seats, the advisory board should get in touch with Board of County Commissioners Chair as to why seats are not being filled, or the BOCC will fill the seats the next time. 13 Chair McKee said this sounds like a good recommendation. He said the process will remain the same, and if he has concerns, he will vote his conscience. Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin has the opposite concerns, in that he wants no spots vacant. He said the advisory boards can have one shot to let the BOCC know why seats are not filled. Chair McKee said he is on one side of the argument, with Commissioner Dorosin is on the other side, and the rest of the Board is on middle ground. c. Advisory Board Meeting Times Discussion Points: • Does the BOCC want to do a blanket change to advisory board policies to allow individual boards to decide their own meeting times? • Or does the BOCC want to stay with the current status quo? John Roberts said some boards set their own times, and some advisory boards' times were designated by the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs said having meetings at different times is confusing to the public. He said if a board changes the times of meetings, then it should only be allowed once within a specified time period. Chair McKee agreed. Commissioner Rich said there are boards that meet during the day, and asked if these should be handled differently. Commissioner Jacobs said there may be restrictions for any time of day, but there should be consistency to nighttime meetings. Commissioner Rich agreed. John Roberts said those advisory boards that set their own meeting times, usually meet at the same time; and are not changing their times randomly, as may have been construed by his earlier comments. Commissioner Burroughs said she is inclined to let the advisory boards determine their own meeting times, but discourage them from changing meeting times frequently. Commissioner Jacobs said to let boards know there is a default formal meeting time, and if boards want to meet at other times to let the BOCC know why. d. Advisory Boards- Size of Boards Commissioner Price said this question should be addressed when there is a large absentee problem. Commissioner Pelissier said she raised this concern originally, in reference to the Human Relations Commission (HRC), which had 18 members, as this board was merged from two other boards. She said this board does not require designated positions like the Commission of the Environment. She proposed reducing the HRC by three or four members. Commissioner Jacobs said when he was on the HRC, more members were desired in order to have more community representation and outreach. He said if there is trouble filling the positions, then it could be reduced. Chair McKee said to reduce the number by natural attrition, for this board, or any board. The Board agreed by consensus. Commissioner Rich asked Thom Freeman if there is consistent attendance at the HRC meetings. Thom Freeman said this board is notorious for lack of attendance. Commissioner Rich said to talk about a plan about reducing a few at-large positions, without kicking anyone off, if there is an attendance problem. 14 Donna Baker said if there is a consistent problem with attendance, either staff or the Clerk's office will contact the board member with attendance issues to see what is going on. Thom Freeman said quarterly attendance reports are requested from all advisory boards. Chair McKee said there are multiple reasons why people cannot attend, but the Board of County Commissioners can be more aggressive about stressing the importance of attendance. Commissioner Price said it is important to make sure that those who really want to serve are able to serve. Chair McKee said to encourage advisory boards to be more conscientious about attendance, instead of using attrition at this point. Commissioner Jacobs said in the past there were Chair/Vice Chair and Advisory Chairs meetings to review processes and procedures. Commissioner Rich said this was the process on the Chapel Hill Town Council as well. Chair McKee asked if there are any other questions about boards and commissions. Commissioner Rich said she is comfortable with all that was discussed, if John Roberts talks regularly with the quasi-judicial boards about processes/procedures. John Roberts said he would conduct training consistently, and if there is a special need or a new appointee in need of training. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board