Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-16-2017 1 APPROVED 3/7/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 16, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chair Dorosin said Agenda Item 1 needs to be moved to February 21st, due to the full nature of this evening's agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to move this item to the 21st agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Rich asked if, when Item 1 is presented next week, could it be formatted differently to make it easier to read the comments. Bonnie Hammersley said staff felt similarly, but wanted the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to see all the comments. She said staff received three sets of comments, and rather than manipulating the comments, chose to number the pages and enter page numbers as each item was discussed. She said some comments were moved into the recommendations, and noted the different colors were due to various technology that was used, and the colors were difficult to manipulate. Chair Dorosin said he would like to reverse the orders of Items 4 and 5 this evening. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to reverse the order of these two items. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Review and Amend the Orange County Housing Affordability Policy This item moved to the February 21st Board of County Commissioners Regular meeting. 2 2. Solid Waste Five Year Financial Plan and Cost Study Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the information below, and noted that this presentation has already been given to the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG). BACKGROUND: The Department of Finance and Administrative Services determined that the current programs fee of$107 was not sufficient to meet Solid Waste expense requirements in subsequent fiscal years attributed in part to a dramatic shift within the Recycling industry. From fiscal years 2010-11 to the present, the recycling market has undergone significant changes which have resulted in a decrease in recycling revenues to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. During the same period, operating expenses for recycling operations processing has increased, as evidenced by the tons recycled. The chart below illustrates the decrease in recycling revenues and the increase in tons recycled from FY 2010-11 through FY 2015-16. The Solid Waste Enterprise Fund has had to utilize fund balance to offset the decline in recycling revenues. As a result of the unstable state of the recycling market, the County retained an independent third party consultant, SCS Engineers to confirm its' internal assessment by conducting a solid waste cost of services and rate study. SCS Engineers in collaboration with County staff developed a Five Year Financial Plan to ensure fiscal resiliency to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund on a long-term basis while at the same time maintaining the County's record and reputation for achieving high waste reduction targets and landfill diversion. The financial analysis concluded that an increased program fee is necessary to achieve a sustainable and recurring revenue stream for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The suggested method for increasing the fee is to use a multi-faceted approach with a General Fund and a Solid Waste Fund Balance contribution to modestly increase the program fee. On January 30, 2017, the County Manager presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) two options that used the multi-faceted approach (Attachment C). Also, the Community Development Director will develop a communication plan to inform residents of the Solid Waste program fee. Bob Dick with SCS Engineers made the following PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed some history, noting, prior to FY 15-16, Orange County had several different fees after the closing of the sanitary landfill in 2013. He said these fees were discontinued in 15- 16, and the County introduced a comprehensive program fee to 60,000 developed parcels. He said the finance department observed a potential shortfall, and SCS Engineers was called in to look at a more comprehensive 5-year financial plan. Bob Dick made the following PowerPoint presentation: Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Orange County, NC Presented by Bob Dick, PE and Ryan Duckett February 16, 2017 Summary of SCS' Efforts Since May 2016 SWAG Meeting • Revision of Financial Model based on Actual FY 2016-17 Budget • Budgetary Leveling throughout Financial Model • Additional Revenue/Expense Analysis • Finalize and Submit Final Report 3 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund • 4 Cost Centers (Divisions within Department) • 33 Distinct Revenue Sources (line items) • 47 Distinct Expense Sources (line items) • 5 Capital Sources Budgeted SW Dept. Revenue Components as Portions of Total Revenue (FY 2016-17) (chart) Baseline (Status Quo) Scenario • 5-Year Projections • Maintains Revenues o SW Programs Fee — $107/parcel o Appropriated Fund Balance — Excludes sources other than loan proceeds in last 4 years • Estimated Fund Deficit of$1.8 Million addressed by Appropriated Fund Balance in FY 2016-17 only Commissioner McKee referred to the deficit for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, noting an increase of about $100,000 each year. He asked if there is a reason for the jump in those years. He said the solid waste balance appropriation is going down, but the deficit is increasing. Bob Dick said any place where there is not a direct correlation between the indication of a diminishing appropriated fund balance contribution, and the ultimate deficit, is most likely attributed to capital projects that are to be completed in that individual year. He said the department is in the process of modernizing some of the solid waste collection centers. He said the operation costs tend to change in a uniform nature, and any substantial changes are due to larger equipment purchases, or an upgrade or modernization of a collection center. Chair Dorosin asked if the current general fund contribution, listed at $2 million, is the total of the fee collected. Bob Dick said no. He said the Solid Waste Assessment fee, at $107 per parcel, yields about $6.5 million, which is included in the top line revenues. He said this current general fund contribution is an allocation that the County has made historically each year. Chair Dorosin asked if$2 million is in addition to the $6.5 million that is generated by the fees. Bob Dick said yes. He resumed the PowerPoint presentation: Baseline (Status Quo) Scenario • FY 2016-17 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $3.8 Million - General Fund (GF) Contribution= $2.0 Million - SW Fund Balance = $1.8 Million Yields Balanced SW Budget = $0 • FY 2017-18 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.0 Million - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million - SW Fund Balance* = $0.5 Million 4 Remaining SW Deficit = $1.5 Million • FY 2018-19 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.1 Million - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million - SW Fund Balance* = $0.5 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $1.6 Million *Residual Solid Waste Fund Balance Phase Out not included in Pro Forma model Baseline (Status Quo) Scenario • FY 2019-20 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.4 Million - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million - SW Fund Balance* = $0.3 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $2.1 Million • FY 2020-21 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.6 Million - Current GF Contribution= $2.0 Million - SW Fund Balance* = $0.3 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $2.3 Million *Residual Solid Waste Fund Balance Phase Out not included in Pro Forma model Financial Analysis Conclusions Status Quo (Scenario 1) • Enterprise Fund current financial structure is unsustainable. • Significant annual deficits are projected for next 5 years. • Fund subsidized by General Fund Contribution (historical precedent) and allocation from Appropriated Fund Balance (SW reserves). • Allocations from Appropriated Fund's Balance could deplete entire Fund in 5 years. • Refer to Table 1 in Appendix F of Report (page F-1). Scenario 1 (chart) Financial Analysis Conclusions Break-Even Analysis (Scenario 2) • If the historical General Fund Contribution is maintained, then break-even Fee required calculated at approximately $137 to $148 per parcel. • Refer to Table 1 in Appendix F of Report (page F-1) Break-Even Scenario • FY 2016-17 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $3.8 Million - General Fund (GF) Contribution= $2.0 Million - SW Fund Balance = $1.8 Million Yields Balanced SW Budget = $0 • FY 2017-18 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.0 Million 5 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $2.0 Million • FY 2018-19 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.1 Million - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $2.1 Million • FY 2019-20 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.4 Million - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $2.4 Million • FY 2020-21 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.6 Million - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million Remaining SW Deficit = $2.6 Million Scenario 2 (chart) Financial Analysis Conclusions • As an alternative to solely increasing the Program Fee, the County could take a multi- faceted approach by increasing the General Fund Contribution, using Solid Waste Fund Balance when available, and more modestly increasing the Program Fee. Cost-of-Services Benchmarking (graph) Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is no fee indicated, does that mean that the particular county does not charge a fee. Bob Dick said yes, and he said every municipal jurisdiction gets its funding through slightly different formulas. He said this chart was completed using only counties that assess a Solid Waste fee. He said if a county receives funds via the county tax rate, a fee would not show up in this chart. Commissioner Price asked if the commissioner approved fee schedule, contained in the report, is consistent with other counties. Bob Dick said this is a difficult question to answer definitively as Solid Waste programs tend to have all sorts of mechanisms and fees assigned. He added that throughout its review, SCS Enterprises did not see any glaring inefficiencies throughout the entire department's programs that would warrant a suggestion of improved efficiency. Commissioner Price asked if there is any particular plan to deal with recycled materials that are not purchased. Gayle Wilson said all of their materials are going to market daily in Raleigh, and he said the County no longer has to pay to have those materials received. He said changes are being made day-to-day, and a bit of money is being made currently, with the exception of glass. Commissioner Price asked if there is a way to dispose of glass without a market for it. Gayle Wilson said there is a market for glass if it is given away. He said it is a difficult material to run through the machinery, but once it is sorted there is a market, but it is not paid for. Commissioner Price said she wanted to insure that the recycling efforts are not in vain. 6 Gayle Wilson said that County agreements prevent glass from being landfilled. Bob Dick resumed the PowerPoint presentation: Recommended Financial Plan • Continue General Fund Contribution • Reduce reliance on Solid Waste Fund Balance in a phased manner as necessary • Increase Program Fee in FY17-18 and beyond • Evaluate Potential Revenue Generating Ideas • Evaluate Potential Expense Reductions • Evaluate Potential Cost Saving Ideas • Consider Program Financing Issues Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation, which she noted had been presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) in January: Solid Waste Fee Key Assumptions Parcels Average Annual Growth Rate 1.1% Expenditure Average Annual Growth Rate 1.6% Landfill Post-Closure Liability $6,570,862 Available Solid Waste Fund Balance $4,441,611 General Fund Balance Appropriations-Annual $2,000,000 Solid Waste Fund Balance Appropriation TBD Option #1 Five-Year Financial Forecast FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Solid Waste Fund $750,000 $500,000 $350,000 $200,000 $200,000 Balance Appropriation General Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Appropriation Program Fee $128 $132 $139 $145 $148 Estimated Available $4,441,611 $3,691,611 $3,191,611 $2,841,611 $2,641,611 $2,441,611 Solid Waste Fund Balance %of operating expenses 42% 28% 24% 19% 19% 17% Number of Assessed 60,178 60,840 61,509 62,186 62,870 Parcels Option #2 Five-Year Financial Forecast FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Solid Waste Fund $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Balance Appropriation General Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Appropriation Program Fee $134 $134 $138 $142 $148 Estimated Available $4,441,611 $4,041,611 $3,641,611 $3,241,611 $2,841,611 $2,441,611 Solid Waste Fund Balance %of operating expenses 42% 30% 27% 22% 20% 17% Number of Assessed 60,178 60,840 61,509 62,186 62,870 7 Parcels Bonnie Hammersley said after she presented this to the SWAG, they suggested she talk to all of the Town Managers about her recommended options. Bonnie Hammersley said staff is putting together a communications plan about this proposed fee increase. Commissioner Price said the report discussed the possibility of reducing hours, and asked if the Manager's schedule takes that into effect. Bonnie Hammersley said her plan does not cut back hours, but she recommended looking at this each year. Commissioner McKee asked if there was consideration given to increasing the general fund contribution to $2.5 million or more, in order to soften the first year blow. Bonnie Hammersley said this consideration was not given, and available funds would need to be identified in the general fund. Commissioner McKee said he asked this question because if the general fund appropriation was increased, it would not change the draw off of the fund balance, but it would allow the first year increase to be a bit less dramatic. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the parcels are solely residential. Bonnie Hammersley said this includes developed and individual parcels. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the University of North Carolina (UNC) pays its fair share. Bonnie Hammersley said UNC has its own system, and staff is working closely with the University. Commissioner Jacobs said non-profits have to pay the fee too. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Manager has a plan to pay back the fund for the County's portion of the Greene Tract. Bonnie Hammersley said the purchase of the Greene Tract from Solid Waste was already completed, and is in this year's activities; and at year-end 2016-17, this will be completed. She said this is not reflected in the numbers at this time, but it will be at year-end. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this would potentially affect the point made by Commissioner McKee. Bonnie Hammersley said yes, depending on how the year ends. She said this will be more clear as the budget process continues. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the manner in which other governments fit into this could be explained. Bonnie Hammersley said staff is working on an interlocal agreement. She said the County cannot charge the towns unless this fee is agreed to, and staff is working closely with the Towns on this issue. She said the SWAG has been very helpful, and she expects this to be resolved before the beginning of the next fiscal year. Commissioner Burroughs clarified that these options are being presented to the Towns. Bonnie Hammersley said yes, that she is meeting with the Managers on this, and has also offered to present at town meetings. Commissioner Burroughs recalled this issue being tricky in the past. Commissioner Jacobs said the closure of the landfill raised a lot of resentment, and in the course of talking about the interlocal agreement the County made sure that the Towns were informed in plenty of time, so that the fees could be worked into the various budgets. He said some of the attitudes on the SWAG have become more collaborative, which has made this process easier. 8 Commissioner McKee said he had issues with the fee because of its impact on low- income residents, and asked if ways to lessen the impact on low-income residents, such as those in mobile home parks, has been discussed. Bonnie Hammersley said staff has looked at the mobile home parks, and the fees that park owners assess to renter is unknown, making it difficult to come up with a solution. She said those who own their mobile homes do not receive tax notices. She said staff is looking at best practices from other counties, and is working to try and find a suitable solution. Chair Dorosin referred to the closure liability and the Solid Waste fund, and asked if there is any requirement that these two be related. He said the amount that is in the Solid Waste fund is not necessarily linked to the $6 million closure liability. Bonnie Hammersley said no and there is no state mandate for what you have to have. She said the $6 million liability is based on what it would take if there were a catastrophic event. Chair Dorosin asked if there is another pot of money, other than the fund balance, for closure liability. Bonnie Hammersley said there is the $6.5 assigned within the balance sheet for that purpose. She said the available fund balance is also on the balance sheet and is unassigned. Chair Dorosin clarified that there is $6.5 million set aside to cover the potential closure of the landfill, and if the balance fund were to be dipped into to cover this shortfall, the $6.5 million would not be affected. Bonnie Hammersley said that is correct, and the $6.5 million is separate from the $4.4 million. Chair Dorosin echoed Commissioner McKee's concern about this fee and its affect on low-income residents, and he hoped to find a solution for this. He said he would like to reduce the County's reliance on fees, as stated by Commissioner McKee. Chair Dorosin said the Board has looked at various potential revenue sources for the closed landfill, and the consensus seems to be that nothing can be done with it. He said he would like to keep working on this and encouraged creativity. Commissioner Rich thanked all who come to the SWAG meetings. Chair Dorosin thanked Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Rich for their service on this committee. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager for her work on this committee. Commissioner Price asked if the way in which apartments will be affected by this fee could be outlined. Gayle Wilson said each apartment unit is assessed a fee, for which the owner of the building is responsible to pay. Commissioner Price requested that any public outreach and education on this topic should include information about the tax exemption for this fee. She said many people do not know about this. Commissioner Marcoplos said it may be worthwhile to look at other counties that do not have fees, but are still high performing. Commissioner Marcoplos said landfills take about 30 years to settle. Gayle Wilson said it may take longer, but federal law says 30 years post closure maintenance and monitoring. Commissioner Marcoplos said there is solar technology that can be overlaid on a landfill prior to 30 years. Gayle Wilson said this is possible depending on the degree of subsidence and settling of the landfill. He said if it is stabilized enough, it is possible. 9 3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-Light Rail Transit (LRT) Discussion BACKGROUND: In 2010 and 2011 (adopted July 2011) an Alternatives Analysis (D-O AA) of the Durham Orange Transit Corridor was conducted by URS (now AECOM) consultants as part of the Triangle Regional Transit Program. An introductory excerpt from the 171 page study is below. The link for this information is http://ourtransitfuture.com/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/12/2.2.2a-00401-DO-Vol-l-Detailed-Def-July-ALL-DVD-READY.pdf. Triangle Transit has commissioned an Alternative Analysis (AA) to initiate fixed guideway transit service between Durham and Orange counties. The AA is a component of the Triangle Regional Transit Program, a comprehensive effort to study expanded bus and rail networks across Wake, Orange, and Durham counties. This report documents the analysis and findings of the Durham-Orange County Corridor (Durham-Orange Corridor)AA process. The AA is an outgrowth of the system-level Transitional Analysis that was completed in the fall of 2010 and that recommended the Durham-Orange Corridor as one of the region's priority high-capacity transit corridors to be advanced into the more detailed AA process. The AA evaluates and screens alternative alignments, modes, and station locations within the Durham-Orange Corridor and concludes with the selection of a recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The AA process detailed in this report is consistent with the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) New Starts guidelines that enable fixed-guideway projects to be eligible for federal funds. The purpose of an AA is to determine the best mode or technology (i.e. Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail Transit, or Commuter Rail Transit) for the corridor based on goals of the local government. Table ES-1 entitled "Summary of Evaluation Results for LRT, BRT-High and BRT- Low Alternatives" is included as Attachment B. This table provides a high level summary of the capabilities and costs associated with the technologies that were evaluated. BRT-High represented a dedicated lane approach while BRT-Low represented more of a mixed traffic approach. Although this document was created in 2011, it represents the information that was available at that time to the policymakers involved in recommending the mode of transportation in the corridor and the alignment. Work has continued since 2011. One significant difference between the 2011 estimates and current estimates is that the estimated ridership on the LRT project has increased from approximately 12,000 in the 2011 study to over 24,000 in the most recent analysis. Wake County has gone through an extensive transit analysis and public outreach process in preparation for the County's 2016 transit referendum. Their alternatives analysis of a more dispersed transit region concluded that a mix of BRT, CRT, and bus service would best serve the needs of the County. In this presentation, GoTriangle has been asked to provide information on why BRT was not chosen as the appropriate technology for the Durham Orange Transit corridor and why it was chosen for application in Wake County. Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented Development, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 10 Orange County -Why Light Rail Was Selected for the Durham-Orange Corridor Orange County Board of County Commissioners February 16, 2017 Presentation Overview • Matching Transit Technology to a Particular Corridor • Key Travel Data for Durham and Orange Counties • LRT & BRT performance in the USA • Transit & the Environment • Discussion The Triangle Will Be A Growth Leader(graph) Lessons from Seattle-Tacoma and Minneapolis-St Paul • Multiple transit providers • Several modes of transit • The right "transit tool" differs from one corridor to another Minneapolis-St. Paul metro: 3.5 million people (photo) Seattle-Tacoma metro: 3.7 million people (photo) How These Communities Decided Which Mode Goes Where Key To Travel Markets: Density of Jobs and Housing Mode Profile: Conventional Bus Where It Works: • All major roadways, arterials, collector streets, and some neighborhood streets • Demand for service every 20 to 60 minutes at rush hour • Trip Intensities of 10-35 trips/acre Operating Characteristics: • Operates in mixed traffic with cars • Stop spacing: every 1/4 mile to every 1/2 mile • Typically 40-foot bus • Avg speed at rush hour: 6-12 mph, depending on traffic conditions Mode Profile: Bus Rapid Transit Where It Works: • Major roadways and urban arterials within bus-only lanes, with limited travel in mixed traffic. 60-foot articulated buses do not fit on neighborhood streets and some collector streets. • Demand for service every 10-30 minutes at rush hour • Trip intensities of 20-75 trips/acre Operating Characteristics: 11 • Operates mostly in dedicated bus lanes • Stop spacing: every 1/2 mile to every 1 mile • Articulated buses for busway-only service, 40-ft bus for buses that use part of busway • Avg speed at rush hour: -14 mph in recent USA installations Mode Profile: Light Rail Transit Where It Works: • Dedicated tracks in separate right-of-way or rail-only segment of major roadways • Demand for service every 5 to 15 minutes at rush hour • Trip intensities of 50-100+ trips/acre Operating Characteristics: • Operates on dedicated tracks out of traffic, limited lane sharing with buses/first responder vehicles • Stop spacing: every 1/2 mile to every 2 miles • 90-foot cars that can be joined together in trains • Avg speed at rush hour: -21 mph in recent USA installations Mode Profile: Commuter Rail Where It Works: • Only mainline railroad corridors • Demand for service every 20 to 60 minutes at rush hour, limited or no off-peak or weekend service • Serving long-haul trips for large regular workday employment market to dense job center in city CBD Operating Characteristics: • Shares tracks with freight, Amtrak trains • Stop spacing: every 2 miles to 5 miles • Typically 3 or more coach cars hauled by diesel locomotive • Avg speed at rush hour: 25-40 mph Measuring Trips Per Acre in Durham and Orange Counties Key To Travel Markets: Trip Intensity Map of Triangle (TJCOG) (graph) Trips Per Acre by Location (see map handout) D-O LRT Corridor Trips Per Acre, 2040 (graph) North Hills, Raleigh- Projected 2040 Trip Intensity: 75 trips/acre (graph) The Major Trip Generators in the Durham-Orange Corridor Are Strongly Related to Each Other Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map) Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map) Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map) 12 Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map) The reasons the Durham-Orange corridor is the largest transit market in the Triangle What Drives Transit Ridership Outcomes • Growth Patterns • Policy Choices • Level of Service Provided Key Durham & Orange Decisions That Made the D-O LRT Corridor • 1789 - UNC founded • 1855 - NC Railroad begins operation Greensboro-Goldsboro • 1892 - Duke University moved to Durham from Trinity, NC • 1910 - NCCU founded • 1974 - Jordan Lake complete, limiting access to Chapel Hill from East, pushing future traffic towards NC 54 • 1982 - UNC and Duke Hospital designated Level 1 Trauma Centers. Only 6 such centers in North Carolina, all but 2 along D-O LRT corridor • 1980s - Orange County and municipalities adopt Rural Buffer, Durham creates Rural Tier • 1988 - Interstate 40 built, limiting "crossing" points between Durham and Chapel Hill Why BRT Was a Good Fit for Wake County, and LRT Was a Good Fit for Durham-Orange (chart) Policy Choices FARES • Chapel Hill Transit: $0 • GoDurham: $1.00 • GoRaleigh: $1.25 • GoCary: $1.50 Transit Service Hours By Metro Area (graph) Recent Transit Ridership • Durham-Orange: -72,000 boardings per day (Chapel Hill Transit, GoDurham, Duke Transit, GoTriangle Durham/Orange routes) • Wake County: -38,000 boardings per day (GoRaleigh, GoCary, NCSU Wolfline, GoTriangle Wake routes) • Durham and Orange have roughly half the population of Wake County, but generate nearly double the transit ridership Commissioner McKee asked if the portion of the Durham Orange, that is Chapel Hill transit, could be identified. Patrick McDonough said about 25,000-27,000. Transit Usage by Metro Area (graph) Key Take-Aways 13 • Durham & Orange counties have been investing in transit at a higher level for a long period of time, and have built a large transit market responding to their compact growth choices and job centers • Wake County is investing to catch up to Durham-Orange, using a plan and technologies that complements their more suburban growth choices • Different transit technology choices can match transit markets in the different counties, and still become a fully integrated system Commissioner Price asked if the riders' destination could be identified. Patrick McDonough said riders are moving within the corridor among the various zones. He said the 3D map shows the intensity of the trips. Commissioner Price asked if the conclusion is that bus riders would rather get on the train. Patrick McDonough said in areas of high bus ridership, the addition of higher capacity transit draws riders to it, and in greater numbers. LRT and BRT rarely provide a similar type of service. "BRT" is a term used for many things. Travel Speeds of Light Rail and BRT in the USA, Projects Built or Added to Since 2000 (hand out) Why is speed important? In a large, continuing study of upward mobility based at Harvard, commuting time has emerged as the single strongest factor in the odds of escaping poverty. The longer an average commute in a given county, the worse the chances of low-income families there moving up the ladder."— "Transportation Emerges as Crucial to Escaping Poverty," New York Times, May 7, 2015 Operating Costs of Bus & Light Rail (graph) Economic Development & Rail (graph) Projected Economic Impact of D-O LRT • Add $4.7 Billion in economic output in Durham and Orange Counties each year • Add $600 Million in additional economic impact statewide • Estimated 750 of direct construction related jobs, + over 1,000 indirect construction related jobs • Add $175 Million in new tax revenue (per year) due to economic impacts BRT and LRT both offer environmental benefits. LRT benefits demonstrate increasing efficiency with greater use, just like operating cost. Emissions of Transit Modes Per Passenger Mile-graph Emissions Benefits Facilitated By Compact, Focused Growth • More walking means fewer short vehicle trips, fewer cold starts trips • Each 1% of short-trip mileage reduced typically reduces air emissions by 2-3%. Mixed-Use Developments Reduce Traffic 14 • Mixed use generates far less traffic than single - use suburban development • Experiences of 6 large - scale US Suburban Mixed Use Developments: o 30% Internal Capture o On average, 15% of external trips by foot, bike, transit• • Thus "45% of trips put no strain on external road network" Public Health Benefits Facilitated By Rail Before -and-after surveys of Charlotte, North Carolina LRT passengers found: • Body Mass Index (BMI) declined an average of 1.18 kg/m2 compared to non-LRT users in the same area over a 12-18 month period, equivalent to a loss of 6.45 lbs. for a person who is 5'S. • LRT users were also 81% less likely to become obese over time. Summary • Durham-Orange corridor is already a large, robust transit market, in a high-growth metropolitan area. • LRT can provide capacity to meet current & future demand in a way BRT cannot • LRT supports the compact growth & economic development strategies of Durham/Orange that preserve farms/forests, reduce emissions • LRT will provide faster service and more opportunity/social mobility than BRT over 17 miles • LRT will provide lower cost per passenger trip Review: 2011 AA Document vs Dec 2016 FEIS/ROD to NCCU Review-2011 Documents vs Dec 2016 FEIS/ROD to NCCU -LRT Vehicle Capacity: -180 passengers per car -Standard Bus Capacity: -50 passengers per bus What they have learned since 2011 AA • GoPass use increased LRT ridership by making transit feel free • If BRT had been chosen, ridership would have risen for BRT, too • Lower bus capacity + Higher BRT ridership = o More buses/higher operating cost o Introduces new, significant traffic impacts • Then, A Tough Choice: o BRT in mixed traffic- slower, less reliable service o Spending more on capital cost to add up to 40 bridges • LRT remains a better fit for high-demand corridor Discussion Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the state wide economic benefits could be identified. Patrick McDonough said there is a contractor in Granville or Person County that sells concrete railroad ties nationally. He said this contractor would be a great bidder because they would have a really short transportation cost to sell concrete ties one county away. He said 15 this would be a rural county selling to an urban project, which is a statewide impact beyond the three core counties. Commissioner Rich asked if the average age of riders could be identified. Patrick McDonough said this information has been gathered, and he will send it to the Board. Commissioner Rich said her sons take public transportation everywhere, and do not want to use their cars. She said 20-40 year olds do not want to be in the car, and she would like to see if GoTriangle's research matches her experiences. Commissioner Rich said there is a lot of talk about BRT versus Light rail, but a lot of money has already been invested in light rail. She asked what would be lost if the plan were to switch to BRT. Patrick McDonough said the process is at 30% design stage, which is 30% completion on the construction drawings to hand to a contractor to build. Patrick McDonough said it would be a minimum of a 4-year loss of time. Commissioner Rich asked if the timing, from the beginning to the end, of the light rail line could be identified. Patrick McDonough said it was originally a 35 minute ride time in 2011, but the design has changed in order to accommodate community values; for example, property impacts and the addition of the North Carolina Central University (NCCU) stop. He said these changes lengthen the time. Commissioner Price referred to the comparison of Durham and Orange with King County, Washington, and asked if Orange County will benefit in the same way. She asked if people in rural areas like Efland will benefit from the LRT. Patrick McDonough said the most important element is good rail-bus integration planning. Chair Dorosin referred to the hand out about buses that run in 100% mixed traffic lanes, and asked if this is the case, how is that type of bus considered rapid. Patrick McDonough said the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has noticed this as well, and has redefined BRT to require that lanes must be at least 50% bus dedicated. He said the cities referenced in the presentation are still committed to improving their bus systems. Chair Dorosin said there could be a bus system, which goes down the existing traffic ways of Martin Luther King Boulevard in Chapel Hill that is called a BRT system. He asked if the distinct characteristics of a BRT system could be identified. Patrick McDonough said there is a national standard checklist for a BRT definition. He said BRT is still being applied to a wide variety of implementations nationwide. Chair Dorosin said one of the challenges is that there are not clear definitions about many of the things being discussed. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if BRT systems ever get faster. Patrick McDonough said it depends on the system and the location. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if Wake County is focusing on BRT due to the wide- open spaces that exist there. Patrick McDonough said Wake County is much more spread out than Orange and Durham, and BRT would work better for them. He said Orange and Durham counties have gone to great planning lengths to preserve the LRT corridor. Commissioner Price asked if Patrick McDonough could speak more about decreased car trips in Raleigh, as mentioned in the presentation. Patrick McDonough said he was actually talking about Franklin Street. He said since the buses became fare free, ridership doubled over a few years. 16 Commissioner Price asked if there was a way that it was determined that buses or the move to fare free were the cause of the decreased ridership, as opposed to more people living in town. Patrick McDonough said this is part of it, but traffic has dropped, and it would be a strange coincidence if this were not related to the buses being fare free. Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project Director, said he is here to update the BOCC on the project, and it is moving forward at an appropriate pace. He said the next big step is moving into engineering, and good progress is being made. He said all information has been given the FTA, and there are a few additional clarifications that need to be made regarding the existing bus rail investment plan and the money that is included in that. He said as the timeline has been followed appropriately, the FTA is allowing additional time to make up the clarifications during. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the plan is for the GoTriangle Board to vote on advancing the engineering contract on April 26th Danny Rogers said the schedule must be held to, and that date is correct. He said the draft plans should be ready prior to that date. He said these contracts are not all or nothing and there would be the opportunity to stop, if necessary. Commissioner Burroughs said the draft plan should be available prior to the April 26th date, and then there will be a required comment period, but the Board of County Commissioners and MPO will be looking at the draft plan prior to April 26th Danny Rogers said the draft county transit plans will be available ahead of April 18th, and on that date GoTriangle will share with the BOCC that it is ready to go to its own Board of Directors (BOD) for approval. Commissioner Burroughs said she will have a very hard time signaling positively about going forward with the engineering, having only seen the draft plan for such a short period of time. She asked if more detail could be given as to why it must be April 26th, and why the engineering decision cannot be lined up with the final plan being considered in June and July. Danny Rogers said the FTA schedule for New Starts is on a calendar year schedule, and if a deadline is missed by a month, it may be missed by a year. He said deadlines have been pushed as far as possible to reduce exposure. He said if this is approved April, there is still room to pull out in June. He said if the plan is not approved in April, the FTA may be missed, and the whole cost of building the project would be delayed a year, resulting in inflation being added, the cost of administration would increase, etc. He said it is a much bigger risk to not approve the contracts, than it is to approve them. Commissioner Burroughs said the project would not be knocked out of New Starts, but a year would be lost resulting in increased costs. Danny Rogers said there would be increased costs from project administration for the delay and increased costs from inflation. He said as the project moves forward into engineering, hopefully in the next few weeks, the budget is set on year of expenditure. He said if the project is delayed a year, the inflation does not get adjusted in the budget, and would be a true cost increase. He said this puts more on local ability to pay for the project, as the budget does not get adjusted from the FTA's perspective. Commissioner Burroughs said she would like to see this played out from a money perspective as there is a real due diligence issue here with the timing, and she would like to know exactly how much it will cost to delay a year, versus what would be paid in the first few months of the engineering contracts. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Burroughs, and said it would be helpful to have a timetable of all items and costs, and as the cost is discussed. He said he is interested in GoTriangle's cost and/or Orange County's exposure based on the cost. Danny Rogers said this information can be put together. 17 Commissioner McKee asked if the expectations of the Board of County Commissioners in June could be specifically outlined, and if it is a go-no-go decision on the BOCC's part. Danny Rogers said June is the update of the transit plan, and in April they would be committing to a higher level of expenditure to advance the design. He said if the BOCC is not comfortable in April, it can direct the BOCC representative on the GoTriangle BOD to vote against approving the contracts. He said in June the BOCC will be asked to approve the County Transit Plans, which would include the DOL-RT and all the other parts of that which would be necessary for continuing to move forward. Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason that preparations have not been made to bring it to the Board of County Commissioners in April. He said it seems to be getting the cart before the horse, and it looks as if the BOCC will need to approve contracts before seeing the revised County Transit Plan. Danny Rogers said the plan has been adjusted due to the statewide participation, and financial models have been updated. He said GoTriangle is in the process of finalizing all the information that the BOCC needs to move forward. He said the original schedule had the two coinciding, but this is no longer the case. John Talmadge said in September 2016, the staff working group agreed that the plans needed to be updated, with April set as a deadline, as it was in line with when the MPO wanted some information. He said all staff worked very hard to get information ready for that time, but two weeks ago the assessment was that the product is not ready to be taken out for public comment, and that there is more information that needs to be vetted, as well as answers to questions that cannot yet be given. Commissioner McKee said what happens if Board of County Commissioners directs its representative to the GoTriangle BOD to vote no. John Talmadge said the decision is the GoTriangle Board of Trustees to make, but prior to that Management will have to decide whether or not to bring the item before the Board of Trustees. He said he cannot say what the Board of Trustees will decide, Commissioner McKee referred to the plan and the changes, and said he would like to know when was the work on the new financial model, that eliminated the $4 million a year for 10 years, completed. Danny Rogers said at the end of December 2016, when it was turned into the FTA. He said that model was being worked on, with the hope that it would succeed, but this was not known for certain until December. Commissioner McKee said it would have been helpful if he had known this plan was being pursued during the meetings in December. Chair Dorosin said the concern is the voting in April, and that information related to that vote in April, may not be available until June. He said getting Commissioner Burroughs' information request would be critical. Chair Dorosin said as much information that is available in April should be shared, even if it is not in its final form. Chair Dorosin said the above item would have been better discussed at a regular meeting. 4. Discussion on Board Policies and Procedures Chair Dorosin said issues have come up over the past year about policies and procedures that predate the majority of the current Board. Discussion Points for BOCC 18 1. For Board and staff to discuss eliminating the practice of attributing planning efforts to specific Board members Excerpt from the December 13, 2016 APPROVED BOCC Meeting Minutes • Announcements and Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Jacobs petitioned to eliminate the practice of attributing planning efforts to particular Commissioners in the abstracts. Commissioner Jacobs said he brought this up, and he does not think it should be an abstract, as to who made the petition about a particular issue. He said it is fine to leave it in the minutes, but do not add to it an abstract. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt a policy to take attribution out of abstracts and keep it in the minutes. Bonnie Hammersley clarified when staff writes an abstract that may be related to a Commissioners petition, staff will not use individual names, but rather will state, "the Board requested." Chair Dorosin said yes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Chair and Vice Chair would come back with a clarification of policy about having the BOCC represented on other boards, in positions that require an elected official. Excerpt from the December 13, 2016 APPROVED BOCC Meeting Minutes • Announcements and Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Chair and Vice Chair would come back with a clarification of policy about having the BOCC represented on other boards, in positions that require an elected official (as well as other elected officials serving on BOCC advisory boards, but who are not members of the BOCC-separate item below). Chair Dorosin said this is related to delegating a seat, which is assigned to the Board of County Commissioners, to a non-Commissioner delegate. He asked if the Board wants to require a Commissioner sit on a board that is assigned to a Commissioner, or can the spot be delegated to another person. Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if he remembers to what this was in reference to. Commissioner Jacobs said he did not. Commissioner Rich said she wondered if it pertains to a former Commissioner who may still be representing the Board in one of the aforementioned seats. Chair Dorosin said there is a difference between a delegate being a County staff person versus a member of the general public. Commissioner Jacobs said the difficulty is that people who represent the BOCC on boards never report back to the Board of County Commissioners. He said there has not been a successful mechanism to loop people in. Commissioner McKee said he does not want to limit the Board's options, and there are situations where it works extremely well, such as with Pam Hemminger who represented the 19 BOCC on the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA). He said he would like to leave things as they are and make a decision on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Jacobs said he has no problem with keeping things as they are, but he would like there to be a stipulation that this person would report back to the BOCC on a regular basis. Chair Dorosin said that suggestion is reasonable. Commissioner McKee said to make that the stipulation of the appointment, and if it is not done, it would be grounds for revoking. Commissioner Rich said Todd McGee could create a sheet similar to the reporting form used by the BOCC for conferences, etc. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to remain with the current system and consider appointments outside of a Board of County Commissioners' position on a case by case basis and include the stipulation that the appointee must report back to the full Board on a regular basis. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 3. For the Board to discuss about having elected officials from other entities serve on their County boards. Excerpt from December 13, 2016 APPROVED BOCC Meeting Minutes: • Orange County Planning Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Planning Board. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this appointment could be deferred until the Board discusses a policy about having elected officials from other entities serve on their boards. Commissioner Price said she emailed John Roberts, and he said it was fine if the BOCC wanted to appoint an elected official from another board to this board. Commissioner Jacobs said in the past, appointing other elected officials on their boards, has been avoided. He said there is only one applicant, which is not an effective pool. Commissioner Rich said she does have concerns about this, and which board does that person report to. She said there is a conflict. Commissioner McKee asked if an example could be given. Commissioner Rich said if one is a school board member doing planning for Orange County that effects a school district, does one recuse oneself. Commissioner McKee said one cannot recuse oneself unless there are financial gains involved. He said he could not recuse himself when his wife was being appointed to the Bond Board. Commissioner Rich said she does not see Commissioner McKee's example as a conflict, but does see her example as a conflict. Commissioner Price said she does not see a conflict, as the BOCC serves on different boards. She said there is no statutory restriction, and she sees no issue with it. She said an elected official serving on another board would be serving as a citizen. Commissioner Jacobs said he has been on boards where he was not an elected official, and there were elected officials on the boards who big footed other members. He said he does not want advisory boards to be put in that position. 20 Commissioner Burroughs said she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and she would not vote in favor of appointing an elected official to another board, whether a policy is created this evening or not. Commissioner Marcoplos said he would be uneasy about it, and he said these advisory boards give citizens a chance to engage with government and learn. He said the elected officials are already in that foray and do not need that same opportunity. He said more citizens need to be invited into the process. Commissioner McKee said the Board always has the option not to appoint someone. Chair Dorosin said such a policy has the quality of being directed at an individual, which makes him uncomfortable, and he would vote against this. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to keep the policy as is, in which there is no formal prohibition if an elected official wanted to apply for one of the BOCC advisory boards. VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Price, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Burroughs); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos) 4. For the Board to discuss revising the Regular Meeting Order of Business to move Board Comments to near the beginning of the meeting and/or combine with Announcements by Board Members Excerpt from the January 24, 2017 Approved BOCC Meeting Minutes: • Announcements and Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Rich petitioned to move Board comments up on the agenda, to be combined with petitions. Below is the current order for Agenda items: 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Public Charge 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) - 4. Proclamations/Resolutions/Special Presentations 5. Public Hearings 6. Consent Agenda — • Removal of Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 7. Regular Agenda 8. Reports — 9. County Manager's Report 10. County Attorney's Report 11. Appointments 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) 13. Information Items 14. Closed Session 15. Adjournment 21 Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if there is a layout or plan that he had in mind. Commissioner Jacobs said the only item that is a bit difficult to sort is the consent agenda, as it is a hodge podge. Chair Dorosin asked the Clerk if there must be a formal structure to the agenda. Donna Baker said there is a policy and procedures book, and any time there is structural change, this book is updated. She said standardization of agendas is good, as it helps the public follow along, and to know what to expect. Greg Wilder, Manager's Office, said in some cases it may be easy to determine external versus internal items, but sometimes it may not. Chair Dorosin asked if there could be a policy for the order of business that said high priority, high interest items will be put at top of agenda, with internal reports pushed towards the end of the agenda. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the consent agenda for the February 21st meeting, noting there is only one item that would interest the public. He said it is unclear to him why these items would be before the regular agenda, in which the public may be interested. He said the way it has been done, up to this point, was to be respectful of staff time at the price of the public, and noted that staff is paid to be present. He said he thought it may be worth trying for flexibility. Chair Dorosin said if having an order is important, then the Board should look at how the order can be rearranged to make more sense. Commissioner McKee said line staff could be sitting for hours, if the consent agenda is moved down. Bonnie Hammersley said she could answer most questions that may come up in a consent agenda, and anything that she could not answer could be brought back at a later time. She is always willing to cover for staff if necessary. Commissioner McKee said he is good with that. Chair Dorosin said the Board has been good about flagging things through emails prior to meetings. Commissioner Marcoplos said to do a trial run, and then reevaluate. Commissioner Burroughs said on another elected board, on which she served, the agenda was changed all the time, and she is in favor of giving the Chair/Vice Chair the flexibility to make a call if needed. Commissioner Jacobs said it would solve a problem of what belongs on consent or not. He said if there was a consent item of particular interest to the public, the Chair/Vice Chair could move it to the regular agenda. Commissioner Rich said additions and changes to the agenda would give the option of changing the agenda. Chair Dorosin said he is convinced that there should be structure, but with retained flexibility. Commissioner Rich said to move the regular agenda (item 7) before the consent agenda (item 6). Chair Dorosin said petitions could be moved to the end, move announcements to the beginning and petitions to the end. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an opportunity to discuss responses to petitions at meetings. He said this information is typically only sent in a letter, and there is no discussion. He said he liked having petitions at the beginning, as it allows concerns to be raised while people's attention is fresh. He said sometimes this is just posturing, but sometimes items of great concern are shared. He said if comments are wasted at the end of the meeting, due to no one listening, then petitions would be wasted there as well. 22 Commissioner Burroughs clarified that the proposal is to put comments at the beginning of a meeting. Commissioner Rich said no, announcements only. Commissioner Price asked if it is wise to have announcements and petitions at the same time, as it would take up a lot of time. She agreed with Commissioner Jacobs. Chair Dorosin said it is not fair to say that petitions are made and then not discussed again. He said many petitions turn into future agenda items, where they are discussed in full. Commissioner Marcoplos said to try it out with some flexibility, and if there are some hot topic issues, to move them up and see how it goes. Commissioner McKee said the Board very seldom uses more than 10-15 minutes for petitions as a group. He suggested keeping petitions and announcements where they are. Commissioner Jacobs said there is never a public component for petition responses. Commissioner Jacobs said if all Commissioners agree to keep petitions/comments/announcements at three minutes, then he would be in favor of keeping the agenda as it is. He said the Chair or Vice Chair should be empowered to keep track of the time, and cut Commissioners off when time is up. John Roberts said the BOCC rules require the Board make rule amendments at a regular meeting. Commissioner Burroughs said sometimes people are not comfortable with being cut off, but she is happy with any of the aforementioned options. Chair Dorosin suggested modifying policy at an upcoming regular meeting as follows: 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Public Charge 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 3. Announcements/Petitions/Board Comments by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) 4. Proclamations/Resolutions/Special Presentations 5. Regular Agenda 6. Public Hearings 7. Reports 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 9. County Manager's Report 10. County Attorney's Report 11. Appointments — **subject to be moved up if need be 12. Information Items 13. Closed Session 14. Adjournment Commissioner Jacobs requested the clerk's office look at appointments that come in, and note any bi-laws, special considerations of training or other qualifications in the agenda abstract with the appointment. He noted recent confusion regarding a Board of Health appointee. Donna Baker said there is an advisory policy, and bi-laws were adopted in 2012. She said the Board of Health by-laws were never given to the Clerk or the County Attorney. She said any board specific information that she has is always included in the abstract. 23 Commissioner Rich asked if board appointments are being moved up in general, or only when there is an attached recommendation. Donna Baker said appointments are typically done once a month. Chair Dorosin suggested moving them up in general, as appointments typically go quickly. Commissioner Jacobs said if a board chair is going to attend, then appointments should be moved up; but if not, the public does not care to hear appointments and they could be left towards the end. 5. For the Board to discuss re-structuring the agenda order to reflect externally oriented items versus internally oriented agenda items. Excerpt from the January 27, 2017 BOCC Retreat DRAFT Minutes: • In response to Chair Dorosin's earlier remarks about the Board's meetings not being as engaging to the public as they could be, Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board could consider changing its meeting agendas. The first part of our meeting could be externally oriented. Then in the middle we could have a presentation from one of the Departments. We could leave the dais at that point and turn the podium over to the staff. And then we would come back for the more internally oriented agenda items after that, such as procedures for advisory boards or appointments, for example. Just like they have moved public hearings up to the front, because that is what is of interest to most people in the public, they could identify the items that most people in the public do not care about, and address them later. This item was addressed in the above item. 5. Policy for Governing the Selection Process of BOCC Boards/Commissioners Assignments Additional discussion item: Chair Dorosin wanted to discuss and change tonight how the Board chooses their annual boards and commissions to serve on. He said the current policy is below: Policy Governing the Selection Process of BOCC Boards/Commissions Assignments - 2011 • Each BOCC member (veteran) shall chose one board that they currently serve on to keep in perpetuity • The junior member will then pick one board first in the first round and then least senior members of the Board will choose one board on which to serve ((suggestion is to do this alphabetically— by last name) • In the second round, the senior member will pick first, and then the other senior members to the least senior member will pick • And then it is back to the junior member.... • Round Robin will not include short-term taskforces (limited duration), ex-officio boards, and non-O.C. boards with BOCC in officer/leadership positions (these boards also cannot be taken away by other BOCC members). Chair Dorosin recommended not having this policy, which allows one board picked by senior members. He said he would throw the process wide open, and he finds himself disengaged with the work of boards on which he never has the opportunity to serve. 24 Commissioner Rich asked if this pertains to the boards that Commissioners choose, or just to the boards on which a Commissioner is also an officer. Chair Dorosin said to get rid of it all, and just put all boards on the floor for choosing. Commissioner Jacobs said if this policy is set, it should be done next year, as this just came up and Commissioners may lose a lot of positions unexpectedly. Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and he does not have a problem with Commissioners keeping one saved board. Commissioner Price agreed. Commissioner Rich said she would like to throw it open in order to learn other boards. Commissioner Burroughs agreed it may be nice to mix things up, but is fine with waiting until next year to do so. Commissioner Marcoplos deferred to the rest of the Board. Commissioner Jacobs said having no boundaries will encourage folks to think about next year's process and picking. A motion was made by Chair Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to keep the process as is for this year, and abandon the entire policy going forward, starting in 2018. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price). 5. County Commissioners — Boards and Commissions Assignments BACKGROUND: BOCC members serve on various County and County-related boards and commissions. BOCC members on an annual basis indicate their desire to continue serving on specific boards or commissions or their desire to make changes. The Board discussed and chose the boards/commissions that they would like to serve on in 2017: BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER BOCC Member Serving 2017 Currently Serving STATUTORY ABC Board Monthly, Third Commissioner Not Commissioner Commissioner Tues 8:30 AM Required (non-voting McKee McKee member) Board of Health Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Wed Required Burroughs - Burroughs 7:00 PM Member Board of Social Monthly, Third 2 appointees Chair McKee— Commissioner Services Mon 4:00 PM Commissioner not Member McKee required but usually a Commissioner serves Citizen-Already appointed Community Oversight As needed 1 Commissioner or Commissioner Commissioner Board (part of OPC designee Price Price —Vice Chair Community Operations 1 Consumer/Family 25 Center) member 1 Citizen/ Stakeholder INTERGOVERNMENT AL and OTHER GROUPS WITH BOCC MEMBERS Burlington/Graham 6x/year-(or more Requires Commissioner Commissioner MPO Transportation as needed) 1 Commissioner Jacobs — Member Jacobs- Member Advisory Committee Tuesdays at member Chair McKee - Commissioner 5pm in 1 Alternate Alternate Marcoplos- Burlington Commissioner Alternate Chatham Orange Work As needed 2 Commissioners 2 OPEN Commissioner Rich Group POSITIONS Commissioner Marcoplos Criminal Justice 4x/year 2 BOCC Commissioner Commissioner Advisory Council Jacobs Jacobs- co chair 1 Open Position Commissioner Price - Community Home Monthly- 1 Commissioner Commissioner Rich Chair Dorosin Trust BOD Wednesdays at Required 6pm Durham-Chapel Hill- Monthly- 2nd Requires Commissioner Commissioner Carrboro-Metropolitan Wed. at 9am in 1 Commissioner Jacobs -Member Jacobs — member Planning Organization Durham Member Commissioner Commissioner (MPO)- Transportation 1 Alternate Price -Alternate Rich-Alternate Advisory Committee Commissioner Durham- Orange- Quarterly- at 2 BOCC Commissioner Rich NOT MEETING AT Chapel Hill Work noon - rotates Commissioner THIS TIME- MAY Group locations- Jacobs BE SUNSETTED — Durham/ BUT WAITING ON Chapel INFO FROM Hill/Orange DURHAM County Durham Tech Board of Quarterly 2 Appointees— one Commissioner Commissioner Trustees can be a Price — Member Price Commissioner but doesn't have to be Citizen already appointed Family Success Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Rich Commissioner Alliance needed Burroughs One Open Position Commissioner Marcoplos Fire Chief's Bi-monthly—first Commissioner not Chair McKee Commissioner Association of Orange Weds.-7pm required as member— McKee County but can attend as 26 guest(s) Food Council 2x monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Chair Dorosin Jacobs Go Triangle Board of Monthly 1 Commissioner Former Commissioner Trustees Commissioner Jacobs (for 2017) Pelissier Go Triangle Special Meets every 2 Commissioners Commissioner Chair Dorosin and Tax Board January and required Dorosin and Commissioner maybe more Commissioner Burroughs often at needed- Burroughs —elected (Secretary) in Durham Secretary 1/2017 Healthy Carolinians Meets quarterly Commissioner not Commissioner Commissioner (3rd Thursdays at required —often same Dorosin Burroughs 8:30am) BOCC Member as on the Board of Health HOME Program Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Chair Dorosin Review Committee Required Dorosin Intergovernmental Meets 3 times 1 Commissioner Member- Open Commissioner Parks Work Group per year at Member Rich- Member 5:30pm 1 Alternate Alternate- Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Rich Burroughs- Alternate JCPC (Orange County Meets as 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Rich Juvenile Crime needed Price Prevention Council) LIWG ( Legislative Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Commissioner Issues Work Group) needed Burroughs and Price and Commissioner Rich Commissioner Marcoplos Orange County Bi-Monthly-last 1 Commissioner - Commissioner Commissioner Partnership for Young Wed of month- Board of Directors Burroughs Burroughs Children at 8:30am Small Business Loan Meets as 1 Commissioner Open Position Commissioner Program needed when a Jacobs thoroughly vetted application has been received. PFAP Commissioner Commissioner Jacobs Jacobs Partnership to End Monthly -1St 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Homelessness Wed. at 5:30pm member Dorosin Marcoplos 27 TJCOG Meets every Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich other month at — member Commissioner 6pm in Durham Commissioner Price-Alternate McKee -Alternate Triangle Area Rural Bi-monthly- 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Planning Organization meeting at noon Member Price —Member- Price — Chair (TARPO) in Lee County 1 Alternate CHAIR- Transportation Commissioner Alternate — Advisory Committee Alternate-OPEN Commissioner McKee Upper Neuse River Bi- monthly Commissioner Commissioner Basin Association (meets in McKee and McKee- Director Butner) Commissioner Jacobs Alternate: (and Pam Commissioner Hemminger) Price Workforce Meets monthly in Does not require a Nancy Coston — Nancy Coston — Development Board — Asheboro/Siler Commissioner-usually DSS Director DSS Director Regional Partnership City has been 1 Non- Voting Liaison Visitor's Bureau Monthly—Third 1 Commissioner Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich Wed Required — Member- — Member- 8:00 AM Finance Officer Finance Officer (part of Executive (part of Executive Team) Team) BOARDS TO WHICH BOCC HAS ALREADY MADE APPOINTMENTS for 2017 NACo Voting I Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Delegate Required Price Price NCACC Voting 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Delegate Required Price Price SHORT TERM TASK FORCES/WORKGROUPS 2016 2017 Cedar Grove 2 Commissioners Commissioner Future Phase Advisory Board Jacobs and forthcoming Meeting Commissioner Price Chapel Hill Historic Meets as 1 BOCC Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich Town Hall Committee needed Joint Public Safety Schedule to be 2 BOCC Commissioner Training Facility Work developed McKee and 28 Group Commissioner Burroughs Solid Waste Advisory Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Commissioner Group (SWAG) needed Jacobs and Jacobs and Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich Space Study Work Meets as 2 Commissioners Chair McKee and In Maintenance Group needed Commissioner Price Strategic Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Rich In Maintenance Communications needed and Work Group OPEN POSITION EX-OFFICIO Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce- does not Chair Serves require a Commissioner NC DOT Quarterly Meetings Chair/Vice Chair School Collaboration Meetings Chair/Vice Chair OFFICERS NCACC Board of Directors Commissioner Price TARPO Commissioner Price - Chair Visitor's Bureau Commissioner Rich —Finance Officer—2017 Go Triangle — Special Tax Board Commissioner Burroughs — Secretary ( elected 1/2017) Boards to be decided on/chosen at future work session JOCCA- need to decide Meets Quarterly in 1 Commissioner whether to continue Pittsboro at 5:30pm - Or participation Citizen Boards — Not Meeting at this time Efland Mebane Small Area Not meeting at this 1 Commissioner Plan Implementation Focus time Group Historic Rogers Road Task Not meeting at this 2 Commissioners- Force time Commissioner Price and Commissioner Rich Hollow Rock Park Planning Not meeting at this 2 Commissioners Committee time- Will take all 4 governmental entities to sunset this group 29 Library Services Task Force Has not met since 2 Commissioners 2009—suggestion to sunset and re- create, if needed at a later date The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board