HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-06-2017 - 8-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 6, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
April 25, 2017 BOCC Joint Meeting with School Boards
May 2, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting
May 9, 2017 BOCC Work Session
May 11, 2017 BOCC Budget Public Hearing
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
6 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
7 JOINT MEETING
8 April 25, 2017
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel
11 Hill—Carrboro Board of Education, Orange County Board of Education and Durham Tech on
12 Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill,
13 NC.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
16 Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Clerk Travis Myren
20 and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately
21 below)
22 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Steve Halkiotis
23 and Board Members Brenda Stephens, Donna Coffey, Matthew Roberts, Tom Carr, Tony
24 McKnight and Superintendent Todd Wirt and Deputy Superintendent Pam Jones were also
25 present.
26 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Hood
27 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT:
28 Vice Chair Dani Rasi and Members Annetta Streater, Joal Broun, Pat Heinrich, Andrew
29 Davidson, Margaret Samuels and Superintendent Baldwin, and Assistant Superintendent Todd
30 LoFrese were also present.
31 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT:
32 Chair James Barrett
33 DURHAM Tech: President, William G. Ingram, Executive Dean for Orange County Operations,
34 Penny Glick
35
36 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
37
38 Welcome and Opening Remarks
39 Rani Dasi said that James Barrett was out of town, and not available to attend tonight.
40 Rani Dasi thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for its willingness to
41 meet, and introduced the new Superintendent of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS),
42 Dr. Pamela Baldwin.
43 Rani Dasi thanked Todd LoFrese and staff for their work on this year's budget.
44 Rani Dasi listed CHCCS priorities for this year: equity, mental health, fiscal
45 management, investment in teachers and staff, community partnerships, and facility
46 improvements. She said as CHCCS focuses its efforts, it faces two issues: state education
47 funding changes and structural changes in the district. She said the current state education
48 funding levels, including inflation, are lower than the amount provided in 2008, although the
49 number of students has increased. She said this decline in state support puts an increased
50 burden on local governments. She said CHCCS is continually grateful for the support of the
1 BOCC and the CHCCS special district tax, both of which represent the majority of the districts'
2 operational budget.
3 Rani Dasi said the District continues to experience changes in student demographics,
4 with an increase in the number of students with higher resource needs presenting significant
5 challenges to an increasingly strained budget. She said that in 2008-09, the percentage of
6 students in CHCCS facing economic insecurity was 23%; and in 2016-17 this percentage has
7 increased to 29%. She said English as a second language (ESL) students have additional
8 instructional and other support needs, and ESL students represent 11% of the student
9 population.
10 Rani Dasi said the Newcomers Program is a district level program, which supports
11 students who have gaps in their formal education, and lack the most basic, fundamental
12 English proficiency. She said 6% of the student population falls into this category.
13 Rani Dasi said the District has the right administrative leadership, concerned and
14 committed teachers, and the necessary community support and board commitment. She said
15 the key goal of CHCCS is to reduce inequity, and this is a long-term goal that will require new
16 ways of addressing many aspects of the District. She said this includes a longer-term view of
17 how the District funds and manages. She said CHCCS is asking for a long-term partnership
18 with the BOCC to achieve the goal of a profound reduction of inequity, and improved outcomes
19 for all students. She said CHCCS commit to being honest partners, responsible managers of
20 resources, and to collaboratively work with the stakeholders with transparent communication.
21 Rani Dasi said CHCCS's budget submission includes additional information to inform
22 the conversation, including detail on current spending, and primary funding sources for the
23 District. She said the 2017-18 budget includes four key areas of requests, and nearly half of
24 the budget request is driven by the local portion of state mandated increases; the second area
25 is teacher and instructional support; the third area is living wage; and the fourth area is
26 continuation requests.
27 Rani Dasi said the CHCCS Board of Education (BOE) approved the District Equity Plan
28 last week, which has been shared with the BOCC. She said this plan will support closing the
29 opportunity gap.
30 Rani Dasi said a significant number of CHCCS buildings are aging, and in disrepair.
31 She said the asset base is $400 million, and industry standards put the annual investment into
32 facility maintenance at 5-7% of the asset base. She said current annual appropriations do not
33 provide this level of funding. She said CHCCS recognizes the funding challenges, and looks
34 forward to creative partnerships to meet all education needs.
35 Steve Halkiotis said there continues to be an unfolding destructive path affecting public
36 schools from Washington, D.C. to Raleigh. He said this is a planned and deliberate attack on
37 public schools, to bring them to their knees financially and ultimately cut off the knees.
38 Steve Halkiotis said without the Board of County Commissioners, the Orange County
39 Schools (OCS)would have folded a long time ago. He said all need to stand up and fight
40 against this tide in Washington. He said the OCS Board of Education appreciates any and all
41 help that the BOCC can offer to public schools.
42 Chair Dorosin said reviewed the agenda for the evening.
43
44 1. Durham Technical Community College— Orange County Campus
45 • FY 2017-18 Operating Budget Presentation and Discussion
46 • Capital Investment Plan Discussion (New Health Technology Building)
47
48 Dr. William Ingram, Durham Tech President, thanked the BOCC for its ongoing support
49 for Durham Tech. He said their budget reflects an increase of $12,823 in operating funds to
1 increase the salaries of employees to make sure all are paid a living wage. He said an
2 additional $150,000 is also being requested for the Orange County Connect Scholarship.
3 Dr. Ingram said Durham Tech is requesting that the construction of a 40,000-50,000
4 square foot building be added to Orange County's CIP for next year. He said this will enable
5 Durham Tech to offer additional programming and courses, and to move the middle college
6 there.
7 Commissioner Rich thanked Durham Tech for being committed to paying all of its
8 employees a living wage.
9 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the expansion of the facility, and asked if Durham
10 Tech is going with the same plan of leveling the trees and putting in a parking lot.
11 Dr. Ingram said last year Durham Tech presented a high level conceptual plan to the
12 BOCC, and thus far, have not done any site planning. He said, with funding, the process will
13 move forward at the appropriate time, and Durham Tech acknowledges the importance of
14 "green space." He said there is also an historic Native American trading path, which cuts
15 through campus, and will be taken into consideration during planning.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Durham Tech has initiated any discussions with the
17 University of North Carolina (UNC) to help train students at UNC hospitals.
18 Dr. Ingram said no, there have only been conversations regarding Emergency
19 Management Services (EMS) workers thus far. He said there are some new administrators at
20 the hospital, and the conversation is on hold during the transition.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought Durham Tech was going to try to serve some of
22 the needs held by the hospital, in the second iteration of Durham Tech buildings. He said UNC
23 desires to be the largest healthcare provider in the southeast, in which case, it will be making
24 some large facilities investments, and the time is opportune for a partnership.
25
26 Andrew Davidson arrived at 7:18 p.m.
27
28 Dr. Ingram said they will be focusing on Allied Health, and will engage them in that
29 conversation both programmatic and financially.
30 Annetta Streater said the middle college concept coming to the Orange County campus
31 is very important and exciting. She hopes more students will take advantage of this opportunity.
32 Commissioner Price said as the representative on the Durham Tech Board of Trustees
33 (BOT), she commends what staff has done in trying to make sure that the options available to
34 students keep up with the economic trends. She is happy to be paying a living wage. She said
35 the BOCC should support Durham Tech at a level that keeps it affordable for students to
36 attend.
37 Dr. Ingram said that over 50% of Durham Tech students are on Federal financial aid,
38 which does not include Durham or Orange Connect scholarships. He said the students do face
39 significant financial challenges, and there is always room to be creative in meeting their needs.
40 Chair Dorosin asked if Orange County Connect Scholarship is available to students with
41 their GED as well.
42 Dr. Ingram said yes, any Orange County resident that gets their GED is eligible to get
43 this scholarship. He said Durham Tech works with the Department of Social Services to better
44 serve students and their families.
45 Durham Tech staff left at 7:24 p.m.
46
47 2. Information Item —2017 Legislative Update: K-12 Education Bills
48 • House Bills 406 and 436 Impact Fees
49 • House Bill 13 Class Size Reductions
50 o Others
1
2 Attachment B includes an Informational item related to a Legislative Update on K-12
3 Education Bills.
4 Dr. Todd Wirt said HB 13 was approved as a two-year phase in, and this is a positive
5 movement. He said year one would have a district class size average of 20 students in grades
6 K-3, and a class size maximum of 23. He said in year two, the class sizes would go to 16, 17,
7 and 18. He said a funding stream is being considered for enhancement programs, such as
8 world language, physical education, the arts, etc.
9 Dr. Todd Wirt said there is some strong language for superintendents to insure that tax
10 dollars are being used to keep sizes smaller, and calls for superintendents to submit regular
11 reports on class sizes. He said the state superintendent of instruction is also permitted to
12 perform audits. He said both school districts would have no problem in providing this
13 information.
14 Dr. Todd Wirt said additional funding is still needed for this school year, and hopefully
15 there will be more of a funding stream next year. He said the HB 13 was the primary bill they
16 have been focusing on.
17 Dr. Pamela Baldwin said there are programs and systems in place locally to gather the
18 type of data the State is requesting, however these existing systems may not provide an exact
19 match for what is being requested. She said the schools are currently under a waiver due to
20 being a part of the Project Advance pilot, but this could change at any point. She said all
21 involved will be attentive. She said she is hopeful that the state will be helpful in phasing in HB
22 13, but that could change at any time.
23 Chair Dorosin clarified that HB 13 is being pushed out a year, but the expected
24 classroom numbers remain the same. He asked if the funding stream for specials is simply
25 being considered, and not promised.
26 Dr. Todd Wirt said the State's language was to provide a commitment to find a funding
27 stream to the additional programming. He said in year one, a gradual two-year phase in would
28 begin. He said the local school districts support and want smaller class sizes, but some of the
29 flexibility in funding has allowed specials programming to be offered, and the Orange County
30 community deems these important additions to the school environment.
31 Dr. Pamela Baldwin said as this process moves forward, it will be critical to find enough
32 teachers to allow for the small classrooms. She said teaching program enrollments are down in
33 universities across the State.
34 Commissioner Rich referred to HB 72, which pertains to video cameras on school
35 buses. She asked if local school buses already have video cameras.
36 Dr. Todd Wirt said OCS has them, but he would need to verify if they are on all of the
37 buses.
38 Commissioner Rich asked if this is another cost that will be passed on to the schools.
39 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS have cameras on the inside of all of their buses. He said
40 part of the State initiative proposed cameras on the outside of buses, to deter motorists from
41 passing a school bus. He said he needs to check if this bill will fund those exterior cameras.
42 Chair Dorosin asked if there was any update on the bill to repeal the ability to levy
43 impact fees.
44 John Roberts said HB 406 moved forward to Senate, as it was originally drafted.
45 John Roberts said Representative Meyers amended HB 436 last week in committee, but
46 that has not gone to the House floor for a vote yet.
47 Chair Dorosin asked if the implications be for Orange County could be identified, if HB
48 406 passes.
49 Bonnie Hammersley said the impact would not affect the budget until the impact fees
50 from the previous year are used. She said the impact fees are being used to the maximum
1 level that they can be used. She said there were more impact fees on the OCS side, as OCS
2 has less growth over time, but has less debt service. She said the impact of the loss of these
3 fees would be 2019.
4 Chair Dorosin asked if the dollar figure of the impact is known.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said it averages about $2.8 million, and this year there will be $3.1
6 million in the recommended budget. She said all impact fees will be used to the maximum, and
7 can be used for new schools and capacity expenses.
8 Chair Dorosin said there are a lot of bills going forward about charter schools, and that
9 could have potential impact on local school systems.
10 3. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
11 • FY 2017-18 Operating Budget Presentation and Discussion
12 • Capital Investment Plan Discussion
13
14 Based on the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction's projected Average Daily
15 Membership (ADM) enrollment for FY2017-18, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools enrollment
16 would increase by 222 students, while charter students of 217, less Out-of-County tuition paid
17 students of 241 remain the same as in the previous year.
18
19 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is requesting an increase in the local per pupil allocation of
20 $377.50. This requested increase in the local per pupil allocation for current expenses would
21 increase the per pupil allocation to $4,245.50. This funding level would represent an increase of
22 $5,469,806 in the current expense for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. By State statute, the
23 County Commissioners cannot raise the district tax by an amount more than what the Board of
24 Education requested. At the April 6, 2017 meeting, the Board of Education voted to request the
25 maximum increase in the district tax to fund its budget request. Assuming no increase in the ad
26 valorem tax rate, the district tax would need to increase by 5.01 cents to a new rate of 25.85
27 cents to fund the 2017-18 budget.
28
29 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Capital Investment Plan projects for FY 2017-18 totals
30 $4,673,027, with a 5-Year total of$71,580,346.
31
32 Dr. Pamela Baldwin said she has been here 25 days, and she is proud of their
33 transparency and the use of data to determine the actual needs of the district through an equity
34 lens.
35 Dr. Pamela Baldwin said the CHCCS truly appreciate the BOCC's support of the
36 schools. She said she is happy to be here and excited to work with all involved in education in
37 Orange County.
38 Todd LoFrese made the following PowerPoint presentation:
39
40 2017-2018 Board of Education's Budget Request
41 April 25, 2017
42 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
43
44 Tonight's Presentation
45 • 2017-18 Operating Budget Request
46 o Overview of continuation, expansion requests, revenue and student
47 enrollment projections
48 • Capital Investment Plan
49 o Construction costs
50 o Unfunded major projects
1 o Funding to properly maintain schools
2
3 2017-18 Budget Priorities
4 • Support district equity plan
5 • Provide greater fiscal transparency
6 • Employee salaries and wages
7 • Support students' unique needs: EC, ESL/immigrant, mental health, and low income
8 • Living wage policy
9
10 CHCCS 2016-17 Operational Budgets - CHART
11
12 Combined Estimated Expenditures = $144.4 Million- CHART
13
14 Projected Local Costs of State Mandates and Continuation of Current Services
15
16 State Mandates
17 - 5% State pay raise for teachers $ 886,767
18 - 3% pay raise for other employees (incl. benefits, supplements) $1,102,110
19 - State retirement match increase (16.54% to 17.37% estimated) $ 322,102
20 - Employer health insurance match increase ($5754 to $5927 estimated) $ 155,446
21 Subtotal $2,466,425
22
23 Continuation of Current Services
24 - Inflationary increase to non-personnel Local budgets $ 298,667
25 - Middle School After School (one-year Federal grant expires) $ 240,000
26 Subtotal $ 538,667
27
28 TOTAL OF CONTINUATION BUDGET REQUESTS $3,005,092
29
30 Expansion Budget Recommendations
31 • Restore 4/5 Teacher Assistants $ 650,000
32 • Transportation/Safety Recommendations 215,000
33 • Program Review Funding 50,000
34 • Living Wage for Contracted Services 700,000
35 • Middle School Math Interventionists 280,000
36 • Restore Elementary Media Specialists 410,575
37 • Restore Middle School PE Positions 280,000
38 • Underfunded budget lines (legal fees, refuse
39 removal, fees, HVAC, and security contracts) 150.000
40 Subtotal Expansion Recommendations $2,735,575
41
42 Total Continuation and Expansion Requests
43 • Continuation Total $3,005,092
44 • Expansion Total $2.735.575
45 Grand Total $5,740,667
46
47 Projected Local Revenues
48 • 1.5% Inflationary increase to district tax $336,386
49 • Pre-K Tuition 60,000
1 • Prior Year Special District Tax (125,000)
2 • Miscellaneous Revenues ($ 525)
3 Net Change in all other Local Revenues $270,861
4
5 Continuation and Expansion Requests $5,740,667
6 Less other local revenue increase 270,861
7 Total Funding Request to County $5,469,806
8
9 2017-18 Student Enrollment Projection
10 State projection 12,239
11 Less out-of-county tuition paid (241)
12 Plus estimated charter students 217
13 Total County Resident Students 12,215
14
15 Ad Valorem Tax Increase Required to Fund Budget Request
16 Using Current Year Valuation:
17 County Ad Valorem Tax Increase=
18 $5,469,806/$999,327 = 5.5 cents
19 ($1,638,241 X 61% = $999,327)
20
21 Per Pupil Increase:
22 Current Year Appropriation $46,388,977 + $5,469,806 = $51,878,753
23 $51,878,753/12,215 students = $4,245.50 per pupil rate
24 $4,245.50 less current rate of $3,868 = $377.50 per pupil increase required
25
26 Class Size Legislation
27 • Project ADVANCE is part of a two year state pilot, and as such we have a waiver from
28 this requirement
29 • Unless changed, eventually we would need to hire 40+ teacher positions
30 • Potential cost increase to the district is over $4 million
31 • Legislative corrective action is underway
32
33 Fund Balance Allocation
34 • Assign $1,000,000 in fund balance for 2017-2018
35 • Estimated year-end unassigned fund balance for June 30, 2017 is $6.9 million
36 • The projected 5.5% target is $4 million
37 • Unassigned F/B above the target is $2.9 million
38 • Reserve fund balance for capital projects
39
40 Current Major Capital Projects
41 • Glenwood Elementary School has been completed
42 • 2016 Bond Projects
43 o Lincoln Center/Pre K/Phoenix
44 o Reconstruction and Renovations to CHHS
45
46 Construction Cost Escalation
47 • 2013 Facilities Assessment construction cost estimate for 10 schools - $161 Million
48 • 5% annual increase in construction costs = 15% cost escalation through 2016
49 • Additional cost escalation included in our Capital Investment Plan (4% annually)
1
2 UNFUNDED PLAN
3 7 Remaining Schools from Facilities Assessment
4 Initial 2013 Projected Revised Cost
5 School Cost Estimate Bid Year Estimate
6 Ephesus Elm 15.5M 2020 20.7M
7 Phillips MS 9.4M 2021 13.3M
8 Seawell Elm 15.8M 2021 21.7M
9 Estes Hills Elm 16.7M 2021 23.9M
10 Carrboro Elm 13.5M 2023 20.0M
11 FP Graham Elm 5.5M 2024 9.0M
12 Culbreth MS 5.8M 2025 9.6M
13 82.2M 118.2M
14
15 2017 SAPFO Projections
16 • Need for a new elementary school is beyond 10 year window
17 o capacity increase by centralizing Pre K
18 o remaining older elementary schools renovations would delay the need for
19 decades
20 • Need for a new middle school is beyond the 10 year CIP window
21 • High school addition is beyond 10 year window
22 o Increased capacity at CHHS and Phoenix
23 • Class size legislation
24
25 Commissioner Price asked if there is a cost estimate to build a new elementary school.
26 Todd LoFrese said $27-33 million to build a new elementary school; a middle school is
27 $50 million; and a high school is $85-100 million.
28
29 Long Term (Sept 2015 Joint Meeting)
30 • A bond will help us begin to catch up.
31 • Additional ongoing maintenance funding will be needed for older and newer facilities
32 moving forward.
33 • Continued community support
34
35 National Institute of Building Sciences
36 2016 State of Our Schools: K-12 Facilities
37 Funding to Properly Maintain School Facilities
38 Recommended annual amount to "regularly upgrade existing facilities' systems, components,
39 fixtures, equipment, and finishes as they reach the end of their anticipated life expectancy;
40 systematically reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance that has accumulated; and alter
41 existing facilities to respond to changing educational requirements."
42 Current Replacement Value x Gross Sq Ft x 4%
43 Recommended annual amount to make sure buildings are "clean and in good working order",
44 including grounds, cleaning, minor repairs, and utilities.
45 Current Replacement Value x Gross Sq Ft x 3%
46
47 National Institute of Building Sciences
48 2016 State of Our Schools: K-12 Facilities
49 Funding to Properly Maintain School Facilities
1 Recommended annual amount to "regularly upgrade existing facilities' systems, components,
2 fixtures, equipment and finishes..."
3 CRV ($192) x Gross Sq Ft (1.4M) x 4% = $10,718,408 for OCS
4 CRV ($192) x Gross Sq Ft (2.1M) x 4% = $16,379,112 for CHCCS
5
6 Recommended annual amount to make sure buildings are "clean and in good working order.."
7 CRV ($192) x Gross Sq Ft (1.4M) x 3% = $8,038,806 for OCS
8 CRV ($192) x Gross Sq Ft (2.1M) x 3% = $12,284,334 for CHCCS
9 Total Recommended Expenditure Amount: 7% - $47.2 million annually
10 6% - $40.3 million annually
11 5% - $33.6 million annually
12 2016-17 OCS & CHCCS Total Expenditures: 3.7% - $24.7 million annually
13
14 Commissioner McKee referred to the unfunded plan on page 8, and asked if these
15 projected cost estimates are outside of anything that the bond may cover.
16 Todd LoFrese said yes.
17 Commissioner McKee referred to page 9, and the SAPFO projections. He sais CHCCS
18 are projecting such a low increase in the number of new students, that new schools will not be
19 needed for 10 years, and this is opposite of what the BOCC was told in the transit plan.
20 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS is operating at about 98% capacity, and the SAPFO
21 numbers do not trigger until they hit certain levels. He said over the past few years there has
22 been a flatness of student growth, but next year CHCCS is expected to grow by 222 students.
23 Commissioner McKee said the schools' projections are probably more correct.
24 Andrew Davidson said it is not just the slow enrollment growth, but the fact that there will
25 be an increase in capacity through some of the construction done with bond funds.
26 Commissioner McKee referred to the fund balance allocation on page 7, and asked if
27 the schools are thinking about using excess fund balance on capital projects.
28 Todd LoFrese said the existing joint policy states that the BOE shall develop a plan for
29 the use of fund balance that is in excess of 5.5% target. He said as part of that policy, it
30 recommends that fund balance should be used for one-time expenditures, not recurring budget
31 needs. He said CHCCS has increasing constructions costs, and is concerned about the project
32 budgets at Lincoln Center and Chapel Hill High School. He said there is a strong likelihood that
33 some of the fund balance will need to be contributed to those projects.
34 Commissioner McKee said these fund balances were accumulated through funding of
35 operating expenses, and asked if this excess fund balance has been used before for capital
36 expenses.
37 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS have used fund balance before for capital expenses,
38 including the entire Glenwood Elementary project, at $1.2 million. He said the fund balance
39 increases in a variety of ways: a budget line is under-expended; close fiscal monitoring; and
40 occasionally there is unexpected revenue. He said there was a sizeable Medicaid
41 reimbursement one year.
42 Commissioner Rich referred to page 2.2 in the agenda, and said the ABC revenues
43 seem to be decreasing. She said Chair Dorosin had worked hard to get more funds for the
44 County from the ABC revenues, and asked if there is a reason the schools are not seeing that
45 increase as well.
46 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS got $45,000 this year.
47 Commissioner McKee asked if the ABC Money is for special projects like alcohol
48 education.
49 Todd LoFrese said yes.
1 Commissioner McKee said those funds would be very different than what the County
2 receives, which is an allocation of ABC profits.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason for the decrease in the ABC funds to the
4 schools.
5 Commissioner McKee said the ABC board allocates funds for each organization that
6 provides alcohol education.
7 Todd LoFrese referred to page 2-2, and said CHCCS budgeted $45,300 in 2015-16, and
8 only received $40,000. He said the budget was revised for 2016-17. He said if the amount
9 increases, CHCCS will revise the budget.
10 Commissioner Rich suggested that CHCCS request more funding from the ABC Board.
11 Steve Halkiotis said historically it stayed around $35,000 for about 25 years.
12 Commissioner Price said there was a slight difference between the superintendent's
13 budget and the BOE's request, and asked if there was a reason for this discrepancy.
14 Dr. Pamela Baldwin said there were initial requests, and the differences were with
15 personnel. She said the conclusion was to try and fund what is needed and requested by the
16 schools.
17 Commissioner Price referred to point 8 in the Budget Assumptions, on page 2-2, and
18 asked if this could be clarified.
19 Todd LoFrese said as the County is in the middle of a revaluation, CHCCS made some
20 budget assumptions in its calculations.
21 Commissioner Price said the wording was confusing.
22 Todd LoFrese said the assumption made by CHCCS was based on the current
23 valuation.
24 Commissioner Price asked if CHCCS is asking for an increase this year.
25 Todd LoFrese said the BOE made the motion to authorize the BOCC to increase the
26 special district tax in order to meet the budget request. He said the increase is based on the
27 current valuations.
28 Chair Dorosin asked if the Glenwood renovations increased capacity.
29 Todd LoFrese said no, as this was a smaller school renovation that provided for
30 handicap accessibility, a secure front entrance, and flooding and moisture infiltration. He said
31 the location and condition of Glenwood does not necessarily make it the best candidate for
32 major renovation. He said the renovations that were done will keep Glenwood running for the
33 next 10 years, while CHCCS can focus on other schools.
34 Chair Dorosin said CHCCS currently contracts out evening janitorial and food services
35 to third parties. He asked if CHCCS plans to ask these companies to ensure their employees
36 are paid a living wage.
37 Todd LoFrese said yes.
38 Chair Dorosin asked if CHCCS has analyzed the possibility of bringing these services in
39 house.
40 Todd LoFrese said it is an expectation to conduct an analysis about bringing this in
41 house.
42 Chair Dorosin said he would like to see the results of this analysis. He asked if the
43 contract employees receive health insurance.
44 Todd LoFrese said that would be determined through the contract negotiation process.
45 He said the child nutrition contract includes some of the benefits received by full time
46 employees. He said he is unsure about the evening janitorial employees.
47 Chair Dorosin said it is important to make sure everyone is treated fairly, and these
48 details should be looked into.
49 Andrew Davidson said when the BOE looked at this issue two years ago, there were two
50 different sets of schools: those with in house services, and those who contracted out janitorial
1 services. He said schools with in house services reported a lower level of satisfaction with the
2 evening services, when their in-house staff was ill or unable to report for work. He said a higher
3 wage may bridge the gap.
4 Annetta Streater said one of the benefits of contracting with an outside contractor is that
5 they have the large equipment, which the district cannot currently provide, unless it buys the
6 heavy equipment.
7 Steve Halkiotis said if the BOCC wants to return to in-house service providers for the
8 schools, then he would lead the charge.
9
10 Chair Dorosin said he would prefer to pay living wages and benefits to in-house service
11 providers.
12 4. Orange County Schools
13 • FY 2017-18 Operating Budget Presentation and Discussion
14 • Capital Investment Plan Discussion
15
16 Based on the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction's projected Average Daily
17 Membership (ADM) enrollment for FY2017-18, Orange County Schools' enrollment would
18 decrease by 7 students, while charter students would increase by 192 to a total of 711, less 89
19 Out-of-County tuition paid students, which remains the same as in the previous year.
20 Orange County Schools is requesting an increase in the local per pupil allocation of $417. This
21 requested increase in the local per pupil allocation for current expenses would increase the per
22 pupil allocation to $4,285. This funding level would represent an increase in the current expense
23 for Orange County Schools of$4,182,015.
24
25 Orange County Schools Capital Investment Plan projects for FY2017-18 totals $3,103,689 with
26 a 5-Year total of$47,541,561.
27
28 Dr. Todd Wirt reviewed some of the OCS accomplishments:
29 • The district achievement on state assessments improved in the overall state
30 rankings from 36th to 27th, out of all the 115 public school districts;
31 • The graduation rate of 90% reached its highest level ever;
32 • 38% of our workforce has advanced degrees and 18% of our teachers are
33 Nationally Board Certified
34 • Overall ACT proficiency grew by 7%, with African American students realizing a
35 18% gain and Hispanic/Latino students realizing a 10% gain in ACT performance
36 • Eleven of twelve schools (91%) met or exceeded growth, compared to 73%
37 statewide. This is a marked increase over the past 3 years. In 2013-14 only 6
38 schools met this standard, and in 2014-15 only 10 schools met or exceeded
39 growth.
40 • Efland-Cheeks Global Elementary School raised its school performance score by
41 12 points, moving from a D in 2014-15 to a C in 2015-16. ECGES is no longer
42 labeled as low performing by the state. Large gains were experienced at Efland-
43 Cheeks Global in all areas: reading proficiency increased by 7%, math by 17%,
44 and science by 24%.
45
46 Dr. Todd Wirth said the singular focus of the OCS budget last year was to invest in the
47 OCS workforce.
48 Dr. Todd Wirt made the following PowerPoint presentation:
49
50 Orange County Schools
1 2017-18 Budget Request
2
3 Our Year in Review
4 • Received from County in 2017: $30,812,435 ($3,868/pupil)
5 Usage Highlights:
6 • Mandated salary/benefit increases for staff
7 • Mandated Merit Bonus—non-educators
8 • 1:1 Initiative
9 o Laptops: 3-12
10 o iPads: K-2
11 • Supplement increases
12
13 OCS Supplement
14 Proposed Bands
15 • 14% -- 0-5 Years
16 • 16% -- 6-13 Years
17 • 18% -- 14-20 Years
18 • 20% -- 20+ Years
19 • 13% -- Directors
20 • 9% -- Coordinators
21 • 7% -- Classified Staff
22
23
24 Revised Bands
25 • 12% -- 0-5 Years
26 • 14% -- 6-13 Years
27 • 16% -- 14-20 Years
28 • 18% -- 20+ Years
29 • 13% -- Directors
30 • 9% -- Coordinators
31 • 7% -- Classified Staff
32 • FY2017 Expansion Request of$1,900,000 to fund the proposed supplement bands
33 • FY2017 Revised Bands budget totaled $1,200,000
34 0 $705,208 funded through a Local Fund Balance Appropriation
35
36 FY18 Student Enrollment Projection
37 • FY18 District Enrollment Projection: 8,166
38 - Includes DPI ADM projection of 7,544
39 - Includes 711 projected Charter Students
40 - Out-of-district students reduction (currently 89)
41 • Revenue at current p/p: $31,586,088
42
43 Funding History - chart
44
45 Expenses: Continuation Only
46 • MANDATED SALARY/BENEFIT INCREASES: $ 678,988
47 - Projected at 5% Certified; 3% Classified
48 • Hold harmless Revised Supplement Bands $1,801,619
49 • Charter School student growth (192 students) $ 730,148
50 • FEDERALLY FUNDED POSITIONS $ 86,500
1 - Salary & Benefit increases
2 • House Bill 13 impacts $ 780,000
3 Total: $4.077.255*
4 * 405 increase in current per pupil would be required
5
6 House Bill 13
7 • Modifies K-3 maximum individual class size and average class size
8 • Funded teacher/student allotment ratio may not exceed more than three students per
9 grade
10 • Class sizes reduced from 24 to between 19 and 21
11 • Maximum average will drop from 21 to between 16 & 18
12 • Current law would require adding 12 teaching positions -$780,000
13
14 Expansion Request
15 • $104,760*: Supplement employee dental premiums at $20 per participant.
16 *Expansion request requires $14 per pupil increase in current per pupil
17
18 FY2018 Continuation/Expansion
19
20 • Continuation costs: $4,077,255
21 - $4,273 per pupil ($405 p/p increase)
22 • Expansion (Supplement Dental Premium) $ 104,760
23 --$12 p/p increase
24 • Total Additional Funds Requested: $4,182,015
25 • $4,285 per pupil ($417 p/p increase)
26
27 Fund Balance Appropriation
28 Fund Balance Appropriation approved for:
29 • $120,000: Universal Breakfast Service at K-5 schools
30 • $175,000: Elementary School Environmental Enhancement Program
31 • $165,000: Read to achieve full day camp for grades K-3
32 • $107,000: Academic full day camp for grades 4-5
33 • Total Fund Balance Appropriation: $567,000
34
35 Fund Balance Projection
36 • Projected Unassigned Fund Balance as of 6/30/17:
37 $1,000,000 to $1,300,000
38 • FY2018 Fund Balance Appropriation: $567,000
39
40 Funding Sources and Uses - Charts
41
42 Pam Jones said OCS is in stewardship mode, and more of the capital expenses are for
43 deferred maintenance. She said OCS will be looking at the geothermal project at Orange High
44 School (OHS), and the Cedar Ridge High School (CRHS) classroom wing. She said last year,
45 OCS did the ADA connector at OHS, and completed the auxiliary gym at CRHS.
46 Pam Jones said OCS continues to put elementary school #8 on the radar, and it is in
47 their CIP as a placeholder. She said the Town of Hillsborough is expected to have residential
48 growth.
49 Commissioner Marcoplos said one of the proposed house bills asks for information
50 about utility efficiencies, and he asked if the school districts have this information.
1 Pam Jones said OCS does annual updates on utilities, and practices green building any
2 time there is a renovation completed. She said an example of this is the Geothermal system for
3 OHS, which should be very successful at reducing energy consumption.
4 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this information could be shared with the BOCC.
5 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS have a Sustainability Coordinate who works with the schools
6 in a variety of ways, one of which is utility reduction. He said this employee works closely with
7 facilities and maintenance staff in monitoring HVAC systems, electrical systems, etc. He said
8 CHCCS reduced its utility budget by a few hundred thousand dollars last year.
9 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS also have a high performance school building policy, and
10 completes an annual report.
11 Steve Halkiotis said the State projects that OCS will be a -7 in growth, and he disagrees
12 with the State on this point. He said Hillsborough is growing by leaps and bounds. He said he
13 sent out a letter to the Town of Hillsborough, with copies to the Board of County
14 Commissioners, about OCS concerns about Collins Ridge. He said he expects OCS to have an
15 additional 150 students next year.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if OCS is interested in working with Orange County to put
17 Wi-Fi on school buses to bring the internet to rural areas.
18 Dr. Todd Wirt said he has discussed this with the OCS technology officer, and he said
19 such a proposal could be helpful to OCS students on the ride home from school. He said this
20 type of program has been successful when the bus resides at the home of the driver at night,
21 but this is not the current practice for OCS buses. He said he lives in a rural area of Orange
22 County, and it is difficult for him to secure Wi-Fi access, and he imagines a bus would be even
23 more challenging. He said OCS is open to it, but it would require some dramatic changes to
24 current practices.
25 Chair Dorosin referred to the universal breakfasts and summer programs, and asked if
26 these were well utilized.
27 Dr. Todd Wirt said the universal breakfast fluctuates between 28 to 40% of a student
28 body, given the school that is participating. He said the fluctuations are not consistent. He said
29 OCS would like to be more aggressive in its marketing of this program.
30 Dr. Todd Wirt said the Read to Achieve camp had 450 students, who had been
31 identified as needing additional support in reading. He said this was a three-week, half-day
32 camp, with transportation provided. He said a greater number of students are expected this
33 year, and it will be offered at the 4th and 5th grade level for the first time. He said the target is
34 200 students.
35 Chair Dorosin referred to the increasing Free and Reduced Lunch program, noting some
36 schools are above 50%. He said there is a program now that schools above a certain
37 percentage can offer a free lunch to everyone, and asked if there is a school that has this
38 practice in OCS.
39 Dr. Todd Wirt said no, and the school with the highest percentage is 68-71% FRL.
40 Rani Dasi referred to Commissioner Price's question about the discrepancy between the
41 CHCCS BOE budget and the superintendent's budget, and said the superintendent line may be
42 a previous edition of the budget.
43 Chair Dorosin said he wanted to go around the circle and allow everyone to say
44 something in the spirit of collaboration and community.
45 Dr. Todd Wirt said it is always important to keep perspective. He said he has worked in
46 four different schools systems, and many are less fortunate than those in Orange County. He
47 said the schools here are allowed to express needs, and schools are very fortunate here.
48 Pam Jones said she has the unique perspective of having sat on the County side, as
49 well as the school side. She said she is proud of the BOCC and the schools, and said both are
50 known statewide for their efforts.
1 Tom Carr said the OCS BOE has done so much for their teachers.
2 Donna Coffey echoed Pam Jones' comments, and said she appreciates the work of the
3 BOCC in all areas, not just with the schools.
4 Brenda Stephens said they are very fortunate to be in Orange County, and the Board of
5 County Commissioners shows its commitment in the way it funds the schools.
6 Matthew Roberts said OCS has the flexibility to expand their day camps to full days due
7 to the funding provided by the BOCC. He said this provides a richer life for the children.
8 Tony McKnight thanked the Board of County Commissioners for what it does for both
9 school systems.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said she serves the Board of County Commissioners, and the
11 schools are the drivers that bring people to Orange County. She said she is honored to be the
12 County Manager, and to work with the schools to do the very best for the students of Orange
13 County.
14 Commissioner Marcoplos said he is looking forward to learning the budget process, as a
15 new Commissioner. He said he has witnessed these budget processes over the years, and
16 many people look to the Board of County Commissioners to fix their needs. He said he hoped
17 to be able to communicate to the public the importance of becoming politically involved, at the
18 State and Federal level, to help fix these needs.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped these comments can be replayed at the public
20 budget hearings. He said there has always been a tradition to fund the schools to the best of
21 the Board's ability. He said there is never enough money, and the BOCC is usually engaged in
22 a defensive battle over education.
23 Commissioner Rich said collaboration is critical, and she is thankful for the working
24 relationships between all involved.
25 Dr. Pamela Baldwin said there are two school systems serving every child to the best of
26 their abilities. She said she is thankful to have been chosen to serve as superintendent, but
27 she noted that she also chose CHCCS as a place that she wanted to serve. She said there is
28 great support for public education in Orange County.
29 Todd LoFrese said both schools systems are approaching graduation, which is an
30 exciting time of year. He said Phoenix Academy graduation is on Monday, June 12th, at 6:00
31 p.m. He said this is a wonderful event and invited all to attend.
32 Andrew Davidson said both districts had an increase in per pupil requests, and said the
33 per pupil funding levels provided by the State between 2008-09 and 2015-16 have gone down
34 by $262. He said the dialogue between the schools and the BOCC is ripe for conflict, and the
35 fact that meetings go smoothly is a testament to the leadership in the County, and the trust that
36 has been established. He said the challenges are real and great, but all involved are working
37 together towards a common goal.
38 Annetta Streater said wow! She said she is a bit shocked by the dynamic tonight, but is
39 appreciative of the request for everyone to share out tonight. She said this type of dynamic has
40 not always existed. She said she is greatly encouraged by the commitment of all in the room to
41 the children of Orange County, and reminded everyone that public education provides the
42 opportunity for a thriving economy, civic engagement, and future resources.
43 Pat Heinrich said those in the room are a reflection of the values of their community, and
44 a healthy friction, in the current political and economic climate, reflects engagement and a
45 commitment to excellence. He said healthy friction, combined with trust, will lead to the best
46 outcome for the children.
47 Margaret Samuels said she is lucky to serve on the CHCCS BOE, live in Chapel Hill,
48 and work in Hillsborough. She said they are lucky to have the two school districts, and the
49 Board of County Commissioners that supports them.
1 Joal Broun said she is the product of public education, as were her parents. She said
2 they are in a struggle for public education, and they need to take off their gloves. She asked
3 them all to be the yeast in the bread of North Carolina to defend education, as it should be.
4 Commissioner Burroughs said the BOCC will do its best.
5 Commissioner McKee echoed Commissioner Burroughs, and said in less than 60 days
6 the Board of County Commissioners will settle on a budget. He said the conversations leading
7 up to that final budget will occur in rooms like this, and not in a court room; and will be
8 conducted with a high level of civility, even amidst disagreement.
9 Commissioner Price said there are a lot of challenges in the schools, and the BOEs and
10 school staff know and recognize this in their budgets. She said the focus must always remain
11 on the students.
12 Rani Dasi said she grew up just outside Cleveland, Ohio, in a town that was highly
13 dependent on the steel industry. She said education was able to change her future, and it
14 enables people to achieve so much. She said this hope must to remain the focus, as education
15 is an investment. She said the school leadership and the BOCC have the opportunity to build a
16 strong foundation for every child to succeed.
17 Steve Halkiotis said he came to visit UNC 50 years ago, and he has never left. He said
18 he appreciated Commissioner Burroughs' comments, and said the Board of County
19 Commissioners will do the best it can. He said this is a sanctuary county.
20 Chair Dorosin said all of the leadership in the collaboration meetings has worked to
21 change the dynamics around education, and creating a unified message. He said all are
22 moving away from compartmentalized thinking of education, and students have many other
23 variables in their lives. He said it is important to maximize the time that children are in school,
24 in order to make the greatest impact in all areas of their lives. He said there are a lot of
25 legislative challenges, not only to education. He said collaboration across the public, private
26 and non-profit sector is important. He said Orange County is very fortunate.
27 The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
28
29 Mark Dorosin, Chair
30
31 Donna Baker
32 Clerk to the Board
33
34
35
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 May 2, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May 2, 2017
10 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Price
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
25 defer Item 11-b Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments to May 16th meeting.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Chair Dorosin said that Commissioner Price will not be attending this evening. He said
30 there will be a Closed Session at the end of tonight's meeting, which contains just one item: to
31 review and approve closed session minutes.
32
33 Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
34 • PowerPoint for item 4-b: Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2017-
35 18 Annual Operating Budget and FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan
36 • Historical information on per pupil appropriations for item 4-b
37 • Revised abstract for item 6-a: Interlocal Agreement with Town of Hillsborough Related
38 to the Construction and Operation of Water and Sewer Facilities in the Hillsborough
39 Area Economic Development Zone
40 • PowerPoint for item 6-c: Amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning,
41 and Boundary Agreement and revised agreement.
42 • Gray Sheet, Revised resolution for item 6-c: Amendments to the Water and Sewer
43 Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement and revised agreement.
44 • PowerPoint for item 6-d: Award of Design-Build Agreement— Sportsplex Field House
45 Project
46 • PowerPoint for item 7-c: Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report and Next Steps
47
48 PUBLIC CHARGE
49
50 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
2
1
2 2. Public Comments
3
4 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
5 NONE
6
7 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
8 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
9 below.)
10
11 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
12 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) used to have
13 annual dinner meetings with the Board of Health (BOH), the Department of Social Services
14 (DSS), the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB), and the Planning Board. He said he
15 would like to have a discussion as to why these meetings were removed.
16 Commissioner Jacobs suggested instituting a County boycott of Georgia Pacific
17 products of Coke Industries, such as paper towels, etc., because this company has a history of
18 attacking democratic institutions.
19 Commissioner Rich petitioned John Roberts to talk with the Chapel Hill Attorney about
20 chamber dues. She said both towns (Chapel Hill and Carrboro) do not pay these dues, as they
21 are considered a conflict of interest. She said she would like to know the Chapel Hill Attorney's
22 view on this.
23 Commissioner Rich petitioned to create an Economic Development work group between
24 the County and Chapel Hill, initially comprised of staff, but with Board members to follow. She
25 said it is not too early to discuss economic development in relationship connected to the light
26 rail (LRT) project.
27 Commissioner Rich asked Travis Myren if he could create a fact sheet for the BOCC
28 about transit. She said it is important to have accurate information circling through the
29 community.
30 Commissioner Rich said she went on a recycling field trip to the MRF in Raleigh. She
31 said there are machines and humans involved in this process. She stressed the importance of
32 keeping plastic grocery store bags out of recycling, as they clog the machinery. She said these
33 bags can be recycled at local grocery stores.
34 Commissioner Marcoplos had no comments.
35 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
36 Commissioner McKee had no comments.
37 Chair Dorosin followed up Commissioner Rich's request about economic development,
38 and said starting such a group was part of the transit agreement. He said affordable housing
39 around the Legion Park area should also be researched.
40 Chair Dorosin said he would like to review the BOCC meeting calendar, noting there are
41 over 50 meetings a year.
42 The Clerk said the BOCC has nine public meetings between now and June 20th, and two
43 closed sessions.
44 Chair Dorosin encouraged the Board to be conscientious of the time it takes to hold a
45 meeting, including the amount of prep work necessary by staff. He asked if this topic could be
46 referred to agenda review.
47
48 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
49
50 a. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
3
1 The Board recognized the budget staff of the Orange County Finance and
2 Administrative Services Department for earning the Government Finance Officers' Association
3 (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 2016-17 fiscal year budget
4 document.
5
6 BACKGROUND:
7 GFOA is an internationally recognized organization that offers guidance and support to local
8 and state government budget and finance professionals throughout the United States and
9 Canada. The GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is the highest form of
10 recognition in governmental budgeting and represents a significant achievement by the
11 organization. Its attainment represents a major achievement by a governmental entity and its
12 budget team. In order to receive this award, the County's budget and capital planning
13 documents must meet stringent program criteria such as policy documents, operations guides,
14 financial plans, and communications devices.
15
16 This year marks the twenty-fifth year that Orange County has received the GFOA Distinguished
17 Budget Presentation Award. Eligibility standards and expectations for the award become more
18 stringent and rigorous each year. The County commends the budget staff for their ability to
19 consistently achieve the high standards required to receive this esteemed award.
20
21 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, recognized his budget and finance staff, and
22 asked them to come forward and receive this award.
23 The Board recognized the budget staff of the Finance and Administrative Services
24 Department for the receipt of the GFOA Distinguished Budget Award and presented the GFOA
25 plaque to them.
26
27 b. Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2017-18 Annual Operating
28 Budget and FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan
29 The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2017-18 Annual Operating
30 Budget and 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan.
31 Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation:
32
33 ORANGE COUNTY FY2017-18 COUNTY MANAGER RECOMMENDED BUDGET
34
35 FY2017-18 orange county budget
36 County Manager Recommendation
37 • Expenditures — Revenues -Tax Rate
38 • Assumptions
39 • Initiatives
40 • School Funding
41 • Outside Agencies
42 • Fire Districts
43
44 FY2017-18 recommended budget
45 2017 TAX YEAR REVALUATION
46 ✓ The revaluation resulted in a 6.5% increase in real property value, increasing the
47 property tax base by over$1 billion to $16.8 billion.
48 ✓ Since the County's overall tax base increased, the County's revenue neutral rate
49 decreases from 87.80 cents per$100 of value to 83.77 cents per$100 of value.
50
4
1 FY2017-18 recommended budget
2 Budgeted Expenditures & Revenues - graph
3
4 FY2017-18 recommended budget
5 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
6
7 ✓ Revenue Neutral Rate = .8377
8 ✓ Tax Growth* = 1.2%
9 ✓ Sales Tax Growth = 4%
10 ✓ General Fund Reserve = 17%
11
12 FY2017-18 recommended budget
13 Budget Request Compilation
14
15 FY2017-18 recommended budget
16 Initiatives
17 ✓ Increase funding Orange Connect Scholarship Program
18 ✓ Increase per pupil funding for CHCCS and OCS
19 ✓ Compensation package for County employees
20 ✓ Increase funding for Orange Public Transit
21 ✓ Implement collaborative initiative for Housing Rehab
22 ✓ Planning funds for Economic Summit and a Local Festival
23 ✓ Advance the Criminal Justice Resource Office to County Department status
24
25 FY2017-18 recommended budget
26
27 FY2017-18 recommended budget
28 Functional Leadership teams
29 ❑ Community Services
30 ✓ Property Development Specialist - 2.0 FTE (Inspection Fees)
31 ✓ Transit Drivers — 6.0 FTE (GF/Article 43)
32 ✓ Transit Dispatcher— 1.0 FTE (GF/Article 43)
33 ✓ Transit Demand Coordinator— 1.0 FTE (Grant Funded)
34 ✓ Recreation Program Assistant— 1.0 FTE (Program Revenue)
35 ✓ Community Centers funded through contract
36 ✓ Increase Solid Waste Program Fee $128 per year
37 ✓ Implement a Mattress Collection Program
38
39 FY2017-18 recommended budget
40 Functional Leadership teams
41 ❑ General Government
42 ✓ Board of Elections will conduct three (3) elections
43 ❑ Human Services
44 ✓ Community Social Services Tech — 3.0 FTE (2nd Family Foundation)
45 ✓ Child Welfare Workers — 2.0 FTE (GF/State Funding, Time-limited)
46 ✓ Housing Rehab Specialist— 1.0 FTE (GF)
47 ✓ Housing Resource Specialist— 1.0 FTE (GF, Time-limited)
48 ✓ Behavioral Health Assessment Study
49 ✓ Continue funding Family Success Alliance (FSA)
5
1
2 FY2017-18 recommended budget
3 Functional Leadership teams
4 ❑ Support Services
5 ✓ Website Redesign will improve operation and redesign
6 ❑ Public Safety
7 ✓ Misdemeanor Diversion Coordinator— 1.0 FTE (ABC Funding)
8 ✓ Administrative Assistant— 0.5 FTE (ABC Funding)
9 ✓ Mental Health Liaison Court-involved Youth 1.0 FTE (MOE Funding)
10
11 FY2017-18 recommended budget EDUCATION
12
13 FY2017-18 recommended budget EDUCATION —graph
14
15 FY2017-18 recommended budget EDUCATION —graph
16
17 FY2017-18 recommended budget- graph — Durham Tech
18
19 FY2017-18 recommended budget— graph — Outside Agencies
20
21 FY2016-17 recommended budget— graph — Outside Agencies
22
23 FY2017-18 recommended budget— graph — Fire Districts
24
25 FY2017-18 recommended budget— graph — Budget Timeline
26
27 Budget Document Availability
28 ✓ Clerk to Board of Commissioners
29 ✓ County Finance &Administrative Services Office
30 ✓ Orange County Library
31 ✓ Chapel Hill Public Library
32 ✓ Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
33 ✓ Orange County Website - http://orangecountync.gov
34
35 FY2017-18 recommended budget
36 Orange County Mission Statement
37 Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our Residents or
38 mandated by the State of North Carolina.
39 To provide these quality services efficiently, we must;
40 ✓ Serve the Residents of Orange County— Our Residents Come First;
41 ✓ Depend on the energy, skills, and dedication of all our employees and volunteers;
42 ✓ Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness, respect, and understanding.
43 Orange County Residents Come First
44
45 Chair Dorosin clarified that a revenue neutral tax rate is based on all of the properties in
46 Orange County.
47 Chair Dorosin applauded the Board and staff that the County is bearing the increase in
48 health insurance, as well as the increase of eight hours of annual leave for each employee, in
49 addition to what they accrue annually.
6
1 Chair Dorosin referred to the idea of the Criminal Justice Resource officer becoming a
2 department, and asked if the positions described on page 11 of PPT will be part of this
3 proposed department.
4 Bonnie Hammersley said yes, this will be a 7-member department. She said this
5 department would give the Board of County Commissioners a connection to the criminal justice
6 system. She said the Department Director would be part of the department head community.
7 Chair Dorosin said this suggestion is an example of how this budget reflects the values
8 of this community, and its commitment to diversion from incarceration and focus on youth.
9 Chair Dorosin said the Orange Connect Scholarship Program, which Orange County
10 offers through Durham Tech, is listed as $200,000. He asked if this is an increase from last
11 year.
12 Bonnie Hammersley said yes, this item was budgeted at $100,000 last year.
13 Chair Dorosin said this is another example of the BOCC making real commitments
14 based on the communities' interests.
15 Commissioner McKee said he appreciated the dedication of the ABC funds to a specific
16 program, as it provides a way to track these funds.
17 Commissioner McKee referred to the outside agency funding and scoring. He said over
18 the years there were some concerns about the scoring process, and he is appreciative of the
19 current scoring mechanism.
20
21 5. Public Hearings
22
23 a. Public Hearing on the Financing of Various Capital Investment Plan Projects
24 The Board considered conducting a public hearing on the issuance of approximately
25 $13,600,000 to finance capital investment projects and equipment for the 2016-17 fiscal year,
26 and to approve a related resolution supporting the County's application to the Local
27 Government Commission (LGC) for approval of the financing plan.
28
29 BACKGROUND:
30 County staff estimates that the total amount to be financed for capital investment projects and
31 equipment will be approximately $13,600,000 including cost of issuance.
32
33 North Carolina General Statutes require that the County advertise and conduct a public hearing
34 on the proposed financing. A copy of the notice of this hearing as published in The Herald Sun
35 is provided as Attachment 1.
36
37 After conducting the public hearing and receiving public input, the Board will consider the
38 adoption of the resolution (Attachment 2). This resolution formally requests the required
39 approval from the North Carolina Local Government Commission (LGC) for the County's
40 financing, and makes certain finding of fact as required under the LGC's guidelines. County
41 staff has been in contact with the LGC staff, and staff expects no issues to receiving LGC
42 approval.
43
44 If the Board adopts the resolution indicating its intent to continue with the financing plan, the
45 Board will be asked to consider a resolution giving final approval to the financing plans at the
46 June 6, 2017 BOCC meeting.
47
48 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this action. However, there will be
49 a financial impact in proceeding with the financing. A preliminary estimate of maximum debt
50 service applicable to the capital investment projects and equipment financing would require the
7
1 highest debt service payment of $1.6 million in FY2017-18. The tax rate equivalent for the
2 estimated highest debt service payment is approximately .94 cents. Based on current financial
3 resources, no adjustment to the tax rate is associated with this financing.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
6 open the public hearing.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 Gary Donaldson reviewed the background information and the list of projects.
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT:
13 NONE
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
16 close the public hearing.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
21 adopt the resolution in Attachment 2 supporting the application to the Local Government
22 Commission for approval of the financing.
23
24 Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel said this wording is sufficient.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 Commissioner Rich asked if it is known when funds will be available from the towns for
29 the Rogers Road Sewer Improvements Project.
30 Gary Donaldson said December 1St
31
32 6. Regular Agenda
33
34 a. Interlocal Agreement with Town of Hillsborough Related to the Construction and
35 Operation of Water and Sewer Facilities in the Hillsborough Area Economic
36 Development Zone
37 The Board considered reviewing and approving an interlocal agreement with the Town
38 of Hillsborough that sets forth conditions of utility installation and operation with associated land
39 use consistency with prior cooperative planning efforts and authorize the Chair to sign.
40
41 BACKGROUND:
42 Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough have been coordinating planning efforts around
43 the common interest land fringes of the Town of Hillsborough since 2002. These efforts led to
44 more formalized 2007 acceptance of an area `Strategic Growth Plan' and the pursuit of an
45 interlocal agreement that proposed additional implementation steps by both local governments.
46 This included joint land use plans and water and sewer boundary analysis and amendment.
47
48 The majority of the implementation actions have been completed and the September 12, 2016
49 Quarterly Public Hearing noted some further refinement of the earlier principals of the growth
50 plan — specifically, to reinforce the preservation of the economic development of areas near the
8
1 intersection of 1-40 and Old NC 86 for primarily non-residential land use activities. Interchange
2 areas are limited and valuable for office, light industrial and retail development. Accordingly
3 Orange County had designated this area, primarily outside the Town of Hillsborough ETJ areas
4 but noted on the County land use plan since the 1980's, as economic development.
5 (Waterstone was once one of these areas).
6
7 Being so noted, Orange County sought to bolster the area's potential by facilitating utility
8 extension and accordingly adding this to the Article 46 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) projects
9 list. A prerequisite to utility extension is a utility agreement (such as prior agreements with the
10 City of Mebane (2002) and City of Durham (2010) to set forth conditions where Orange County
11 constructs such utilities and other utility entities provide reservation of capacity and treatment,
12 accept ownership, and maintain facilities thereafter.
13
14 The agreement covers a variety of subjects including but not limited to design standards,
15 infrastructure responsibility and fees and charges. In this case, as we have with other local
16 governments, we are including a land use plan (modified on September 12, 2016), so the
17 County infrastructure investment relate to the economic development plan. Uses therein were
18 further reviewed and approved for modification on November 1, 2016 to promote industrial,
19 office, and retail uses and restrict the area from lower density residential. The infrastructure
20 reimbursement program, if any, for this project area will be based on targeted land uses and
21 any other adopted `development' agreements on a case-by-case basis.
22
23 On April 24 at a Town of Hillsborough work session, the Town of Hillsborough elected officials
24 and staff in concept agreed to
25
26 1. Focus the interlocal agreement on the southwest quadrant only which is earmarked
27 for non-residential `employment land use', therein excluding multifamily land use;
28 and
29 2. Setting a capacity reservation of 108,000 gallons per day for 5 years with renewable
30 provisions.
31
32 This enables the pursuit of engineering design to serve this quadrant.
33
34 Craig Benedict, Planning and Inspections Director, said this item has been revised, and
35 is the gray sheet at the Commissioners' places.
36 Craig Benedict said the purpose of this agreement is to have an agreement with the
37 Town of Hillsborough, so that if the County installs public utilities with the use of Article 46
38 economic development monies, that the Town of Hillsborough will maintain the lines in the
39 future, and provide water in the lines, and treat the sewage. He said this type of agreement is
40 not unique, and the County has a similar agreement with the City of Mebane and City of
41 Durham in the County's Economic Development Districts (EDDs).
42 Craig Benedict said the area designated for this activity is at the intersection of Old
43 highway 86 and 1-40. He said the intended focus is the southwest quadrant of this intersection,
44 which is where the joint land-use plan has non-residential uses planned; light industrial, office,
45 etc. He reviewed a map of the area for the Board.
46 Craig Benedict said there are two clauses in the agreement that are inactive. He said
47 the County is able to establish acreage fees to reimburse the cost of economic development
48 efforts, but this provision has been left silent, as the land uses are consistent with the
49 expenditure of Article 46 monies. He said the provision could be activated at any time by
50 changes to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
9
1 Craig Benedict said there are other development activities that may occur in this area,
2 but such development is not related to this agreement.
3 Craig Benedict reviewed the minor revisions in the agreement, found highlighted in
4 yellow on the gray sheet. He said all changes must be palatable to both parties.
5 Craig Benedict referred to page 4 of the agreement, and said Hillsborough is
6 contributing to a water main loop that is outside of the EDD. He said this loop would improve
7 the water pressure within the EDD, as well as a major enhancement for a sub-regional system
8 in Hillsborough, and probably increase pressure in the school zones on Grady Brown Road. He
9 said the Town would be responsible for the cost of this loop.
10 Craig Benedict said the agreement has an initial term of five years, with a possible five-
11 year extension thereafter. He said there are termination clauses included in the agreement. He
12 said the duration of the agreement is consistent with the time of the agreement. He said the
13 County is the asking party, and would be the first signer of the agreement. He said
14 Hillsborough will have this on a meeting agenda later this month.
15 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a timeline on this project, and when it will be
16 possible for businesses to be developed.
17 Craig Benedict said the next item on the agenda will address these questions. He said
18 the corner of this intersection is of interest to developers, but all are waiting for utilities to be
19 present. He said this agreement is a great first step in the process.
20 Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff for presenting this agreement that protects the
21 County's Article 46 funds.
22 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is expected that Hillsborough will annex this area.
23 Craig Benedict said yes. He said as part of the County's economic planning with
24 Hillsborough, there has been an urban service boundary established which includes areas
25 under Orange County jurisdiction, at this point. He said the agreement does not cause any
26 development that occurs in this area to be annexed outright, prior to a development application;
27 but any development application that comes forward to the County would have to be
28 accompanied by a voluntary annexation agreement, which could be acted upon by Hillsborough
29 in the future. He said Hillsborough may not annex for x years, to offer an incentive to
30 developers of not paying a Hillsborough tax.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Hillsborough is going to charge exorbitant water rates
32 and would that be another reason to go for annexation.
33 Craig Benedict said out of Town water rates are 195% of the in-town rates, but potential
34 businesses in this area are not expected to be large water users. He said, however, it will be
35 important to consider water usage when looking at potential development.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said since the County is providing most of the infrastructure and
37 capital investment, that Hillsborough does need to charge 195% increase of water rates, and
38 could negotiate a lower water rate in order to lure in development. He asked if part of the
39 reasoning behind the high rate is to recover their cost of the capital infrastructure.
40 Craig Benedict said yes and no. He said Hillsborough's water and sewer treatment
41 plants are part of the infrastructure that is city wide and out of town rate wise. He said the
42 additional cost is for those areas that are not gaining city taxes, yet still need utility crews to
43 maintain the lines.
44 Craig Benedict said he will discuss this with Hillsborough for this area and other areas,
45 such as Churton Grove, who is still paying 195% rate in water and they have been there for 10
46 years.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said a lower rate would be an incentive for economic
48 development.
10
1 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Hillsborough's extending of utilities and likely annexation,
2 have any impact of Hillsborough's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). He asked if there is any
3 automatic ETJ extension around the perimeter of a municipality.
4 Craig Benedict said there is no ETJ extension.
5 John Roberts said Hillsborough would be limited in how it can impose a different fee in
6 different locations. He said there are legal limitations, and if all the customers are the same,
7 despite their location, the rates must be equal. He said the Town could structure its rate based
8 on the type of user, and impose a tiered approach, but not based on location. He said the
9 County and the Town could have an incentive program for economic development that may
10 offset those rates.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Orange County is providing most of the infrastructure,
12 could the County not negotiate a lower water rate.
13 John Roberts said there are legal limitations on how the Town can impose differing
14 water rates. He said the rates must be the same regardless of location.
15 John Roberts said he can talk with the Town's Attorney, but there are State statute
16 limitations.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County will try and recover some of its investment,
18 other than via economic development.
19 Craig Benedict said there is a placeholder for acreage fees, but it has been left silent for
20 now due to legislation and sensitivity to utility rate structure. He said the Town is not adverse to
21 the use of acreage fees.
22 Commissioner Jacobs asked if rural buffer boundaries could be included on future maps
23 of this area.
24 Craig Benedict said yes.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
27 authorize the Chair to sign the revised interlocal agreement with County Manager approval for
28 outlined aspects of the agreement, pending County Attorney review.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 *The agreement is contingent upon the Town of Hillsborough's approval which occurs after the
33 County since the County is the `requesting'party.
34
35 b. Phase 1 Infrastructure Design, Permitting, Bidding, and Miscellaneous Related
36 Services Contract for the Hillsborough Area Economic Development District
37 The Board considered approving a contract with The John R. McAdams Company, Inc.
38 (McAdams)for the engineering design, permitting, bidding, and miscellaneous related services
39 for phase 1 water and sewer infrastructure extensions to serve the Hillsborough Area Economic
40 Development District (EDD) south and west of the intersection of 1-40 and Old NC 86, as
41 previously approved during the FY 2015-16 Budget/Capital Investment Plan process at a cost
42 of $189,770, after review by the County Attorney and authorize the Chair to sign (Construction
43 phase services will be contracted at a later date as a potential amendment.).
44 Craig Benedict reviewed the background information below, as well as a map of the
45 area:
46
47 BACKGROUND:
48 In FY 2015-16, the Planning & Inspections Department requested, through the Capital
49 Investment Plan (CIP), funding for proposed development in the Hillsborough Area Economic
11
1 Development District (EDD). Additional funding was then requested for FY 2017-18, based on a
2 revised scope and cost estimate for water and sewer infrastructure development.
3 Estimated construction costs (excluding engineering): $1.5 million to $1.8 million, subject to the
4 engineering analysis and design. The proposed project schedule is included as Attachment 3.
5 The Hillsborough Area EDD site is situated just south of Interstate 40 and along old NC 86
6 (Attachment 1).
7
8 In order to provide basic infrastructure support for the Hillsborough Area EDD, there are certain
9 backbone improvements which are needed including both water and sewer infrastructure. The
10 Town of Hillsborough will provide water and sewer treatment and maintenance, as well as
11 proportionately participate financially toward those improvements outside of the EDD, as is
12 necessary for water system redundancy, adequate pressure, flow and water quality.
13
14 This work is the extension of other master planned water, sewer and roadway infrastructure
15 plans in the area, some of which support the Waterstone Development and the UNC Hospital.
16 This work is consistent with the planning efforts for the Hillsborough Area EDD, Article 46 sales
17 tax Economic Development infrastructure initiative, and the area transportation access
18 management plan, and past and current Orange County Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs).
19 A request for qualifications (RFQ) was advertised on February 22, 2017 (see Attachment 4).
20 The County received three (3) statements of qualifications (SOQ's) from the following
21 consulting engineering firms:
22
23 The John R McAdams Company, Inc.
24 Pennoni
25 McGill Associates, PA
26
27 Criteria in evaluating the SOQs included 1) project timeline and understanding of the scope, 2)
28 previous experience with projects of similar scope and timeline, 3) ability to complete the work
29 on time considering total workload, 4) approach for successful project completion without any
30 major technical, legal or budget problems, 5) previous experience with governmental entities
31 (particularly Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough) and public outreach, and 6)
32 approach to disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) and minority and women-owned
33 business participation.
34
35 The interview panel was comprised of three representatives from Orange County (Craig
36 Benedict, AICP, Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE, and Allison Reinert, PE) and the Town of
37 Hillsborough Engineering/Public Works Director, Kenny Keel, PE. Based on the interviews and
38 evaluation criteria, the interview panel unanimously selected McAdams.
39
40 County staff proposes to contract with McAdams to perform the required engineering,
41 surveying, design, easement plats, permitting and bid administration for this project. The
42 proposed contract is Attachment 2.
43
44 Commissioner Rich asked if McAdams pays a living wage.
45 Craig Benedict said he would ask.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the Board
48 to:
49 1. Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the contract on behalf of the Board, after
50 review by the County Attorney; and
12
1 2. Authorize the Manager to approve minor amendments for additional services or
2 addenda, should they become necessary, up to the project budget, after review by
3 the County Attorney.
4
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he will vote for this motion, though he does not want to work
6 with this company because years ago they were transgender insensitive. He said he is sorry to
7 do business with them.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 c. Amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary
12 Agreement
13 The Board considered adopting amendments to the Water and Sewer Management,
14 Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) map.
15
16 BACKGROUND:
17 The Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement is was signed in 2001
18 between Orange County, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA), and the Towns of
19 Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough. The agreement (included for reference purposes as
20 Attachment 4) provides a comprehensive county-wide system of utility service areas upon
21 which signatory entities could rely when making decisions related to issues such as planning,
22 land use, annexation, zoning, and growth management.
23
24 Potential amendments to the WASMPBA map were presented to the Board of County
25 Commissioners at the February 13, 2017 work session. The amendments currently proposed
26 for adoption include only areas south of the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD)
27 and areas in the vicinity of Smith Level Road in the Town of Carrboro's Extraterritorial
28 Jurisdiction. The February presentation included areas north of Chapel Hill, but Town of Chapel
29 Hill staff is currently studying those potential amendments and not ready to move forward.
30 However, Orange County and the Town of Carrboro are interested in moving forward at this
31 time with the two areas under consideration in this agenda item.
32
33 Orange County/Hillsborough EDD Area
34 The proposed amendments in the Hillsborough EDD Area include:
35 • Designating 87.5 acres "Primary Service Area". This area is currently "Hillsborough
36 Long-Term Interest Area". Designating the area "Primary Service Area" would allow
37 extension of public water and sewer systems into the area.
38
39 In the interest of disclosure, Orange County has received a Master Plan Development
40 conditional zoning application that includes a large portion of the area proposed to become
41 "Primary Service Area" (the area east of Old Highway 86). These WASMPBA amendments are
42 prerequisites to considering amendments to land use and zoning designations that would allow
43 for greater development potential in this general area, an area in which Orange County is
44 planning to invest approximately $1.6 million in sewer infrastructure. The area proposed for
45 addition to the Primary Service Area is serviceable by gravity sewer.
46
47 Town of Carrboro ETJ/Smith Level Road Area
48 Town of Carrboro and OWASA staff began researching the status of this area when contacted
49 by a person interested in possibly developing in the southern portion of the area proposed for
50 "Primary Service Area" designation. As the map in Attachment 3 shows, many parcels in this
13
1 area are already served by OWASA water and sewer systems, and have been since long
2 before the WASMPBA was adopted (some services go back to the 1960s). The Town of
3 Carrboro's long-time zoning designation for the area is R-10 (Residential, 10,000 square feet
4 per dwelling unit), which is too small a lot size on which to locate well and septic systems.
5
6 Staffs are at a loss to explain why this area was not designated "Primary Service Area" when
7 the WASMPBA was adopted in 2001, particularly since the area is not listed in the text of the
8 Agreement (Section IV of Agreement in Attachment 4) as an exception area. Nevertheless, the
9 adopted WASMPBA map currently designates the area in question as "OWASA Long-Term
10 Interest Area" so new water or sewer connections cannot be permitted.
11
12 The proposed amendments in the Smith Level Road Area include:
13 • Designating 20.6 acres "Primary Service Area".
14
15 Attachment 1 is a Resolution to approve the amendments with maps depicting the geographic
16 extent of the amendment areas. The map in Attachment 2 shows the overall WASMPBA map
17 with the proposed amendments overlaid on the map.
18 All signatory parties to the Agreement must approve the amendments before they are effective.
19 Proposed dates for adoption consideration are:
20
21 Orange County May 2, 2017
22 Town of Carrboro May 16
23 Town of Hillsborough June 12
24 Town of Chapel Hill June 12
25 OWASA May 25 or June 8
26
27 Perdita Holtz, Planning, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
28
29 Proposed Amendments —
30 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement
31 May 2, 2017 BOCC Meeting
32 Presented by:
33 Perdita Holtz, Orange County
34 Trish McGuire, Town of Carrboro
35
36 Background
37 • 2001 Agreement
38 o Orange County
39 o OWASA
40 o Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough
41 • Defines Water & Sewer Utility Service Areas
42 • Amended only once: October 5, 2010
43
44 Hillsborough EDD Area Amendments - maps
45
46 Hillsborough EDD Area Amendments - map
47 • 85.07 acres Hillsborough Long Term Interest Area to Hillsborough Primary Service Area
48 • Based on analysis of sub-watershed catchment areas:
49 o 2.37 acres OWASA Long Term Interest Area to Hillsborough Long Term Interest
50 Area
14
1 o 6.29 acres OWASA Long Term Interest Area to Hillsborough Primary Service
2 Area
3 o 3.7 acres Hillsborough Long Term Interest Area to OWASA Long Term Interest
4 Area
5 o 0.13 acres Hillsborough Primary Service Area to OWASA Long Term Interest
6 Area
7
8 Hillsborough EDD Area Amendments — Designations, if Adopted (map)
9
10 Subsequent Considerations — Hillsborough EDD Area
11 • If WASMPBA amendments are approved the following would likely be proposed for
12 amendment later this year (quarterly public hearing required; possibly September QPH):
13 o Joint Land Use Plan with Hillsborough
14 o County Future Land Use Map
15 o County zoning amendments (possibly)
16 • These are in addition to the MPD-CZ application currently scheduled for the September
17 QPH (which does not include the entire area included in the WASMPBA amendments).
18
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Davis Road is changing to a primary service area for
20 Hillsborough, and if Davis Road is the border of the rural buffer.
21 Perdita Holtz said that is one of the land use plan amendments that might need to be
22 made later this year. She said it is the rural buffer, but the rural buffer should follow the
23 watershed line, and this does not as the watershed line is a bit further south. She said in 2001
24 the best available data was used to determine that line, and now there are more refinements
25 that can be used with GIS, and so the line is not really the line.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said this makes perfect sense in the abstract, but in the real
27 world this does not work because a lot of people live or own land in this area. He said if these
28 people miss the public hearing, they will not know that this area will be re-zoned due to more
29 accurate data.
30 Perdita Holtz said that is essentially what is proposed, and staff will notify all landowners
31 of the re-zoning and the public hearing.
32 Craig Benedict said the amount of acreage is not taking an entire property, within one
33 designation, and switching it to another. He reviewed a map to show examples. He said
34 moving the boundary to its originally intended location will stabilize this line. He said staff will
35 be happy to meet with any residents.
36 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff would do a community meeting prior to the public
37 hearing.
38 Craig Benedict said yes, staff has already spoken to some residents, and will continue
39 with community outreach.
40 Commissioner McKee asked if the number of residents that may be affected by this is
41 known.
42 Craig Benedict said there are no houses in the smaller, marginal area, but there are
43 three houses in the overall expansion area. He said staff will still put out notices to this area.
44 Commissioner McKee asked if making this change will require the landowners to do
45 anything unless they want to.
46 Craig Benedict said no, no one is required to make any changes to the use of a
47 property. He said if the County proceeds with the variety of approvals after this, meaning other
48 partners with the water and sewer boundary agreement, there may be the potential for public
49 water and sewer.
15
1 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the property owner to the south of the "red hatch,"
2 and said he/she may one day discover some development occurring closer to their land than
3 they ever anticipated.
4 Craig Benedict said water and sewer could extend to the ridgeline, and to the south is
5 part of the rural buffer and would not have development. He said if the County pursued
6 economic development in this area, there is a 150-foot wide buffer on the fringe of economic
7 development zones. He said throughout the County and Chapel Hill and Carrboro, there is a
8 sharp drop off from urban areas to the rural buffer. He said development is focused, and in this
9 case, there is a drop off at the ridgeline.
10 Trish McGuire, Carrboro Planning Director, continued the PowerPoint presentation:
11
12 Amendments in Carrboro's Planning Jurisdiction (map)
13
14 Existing OWASA Service in Smith Level Road Area (map)
15
16 Carrboro Zoning in Vicinity- change to a primary service area (map)
17
18 Adoption Consideration Dates
19 • Orange County May 2
20 • Carrboro May 16
21 • Hillsborough June 12
22 • Chapel Hill June 12
23 • OWASA May 25 or June 8
24
25 Proposed WASMPBA Amendments
26 • Recommendation:
27 o Adopt the Resolution amending the Water and Sewer Management, Planning,
28 and Boundary Agreement
29 • (Amended Resolution Package)
30
31 Commissioner Jacobs said he asked the Clerk to contact previous County
32 Commissioner Alice Gordon, as she was part of the creation of the WASMPBA. He said that
33 Commissioner Gordon could not remember why this area fell through the cracks years ago.
34 Perdita Holtz reviewed the recommendations.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the BOCC is agreeing to set a public hearing, or to
36 change the designation.
37 Perdita Holtz said there is no public hearing for the WASMPBA, only for land use and
38 zoning.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said the previous discussion about notifying the public about the
40 change does not actually exist in the real world, because the Board is being asked to make the
41 change this evening.
42 Perdita Holtz said if the Board makes the changes, there will be changes made to the
43 joint land use plan and the County future land use map later this year. She said a public
44 hearing would come into effect.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said those residents who have difficulties will already be fighting
46 against the fact that the government has changed it, and will be arguing to change it back,
47 versus a proposal and a discussion.
48 Perdita Holtz said all that would be changed this evening is making the land's primary
49 service area, but the zoning and land use regulations that are currently in effect would stay in
50 effect.
16
1 Commissioner Jacobs said the difference between long term service area, which is a
2 benign concept, versus primary service area, which means it is inviting water and sewer, is a
3 big difference.
4 Perdita Holtz said the current zoning will still apply, and any up zoning or changes to the
5 future land use map would need to go through a public hearing process.
6 Chair Dorosin asked if the Board votes in favor of this tonight, nothing can change
7 unless the other changes go through.
8 Perdita Holtz said yes, and this is one of the complexities of all of these agreements,
9 and zoning, and joint land use plan. She said it is confusing which comes first, but staff has
10 determined that the WASAMBA amendments need to come first because the future land use
11 and the zoning cannot be changed if it is not a primary service area.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
14 for the Board to adopt the revised resolution- Attachment 1- amending the Water and Sewer
15 Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement.
16
17 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs)
18
19 d. Award of Design-Build Agreement—Sportsplex Field House Project
20 The Board considered 1) awarding a Design-Build Agreement to TA Loving Company of
21 Goldsboro, NC for the Sportsplex Field House project with a Guaranteed Maximum Price
22 ("GMP") not-to-exceed $3,714,000 to include this project within the spring 2017 project
23 financing offering scheduled to close in June 2017; 2) approving and authorizing the Chair to
24 execute the necessary paperwork upon review of the County Attorney; and 3) authorizing the
25 County Manager to execute any amendments to the GMP up to the project budget.
26
27 BACKGROUND:
28 In 2013 the Board authorized the purchase of 2.88 acres of property adjacent to adjacent to the
29 Orange County Sportsplex to construct a proposed field house complex and related site parking
30 to support its growth in the areas of turf field, sport court, and indoor fitness activities. These
31 areas of space need are also to support growth in afterschool, preschool and camp
32 programming.
33
34 The Board appropriated funds for the construction and operation of this project within its
35 FY2015-20 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The Board also authorized the Sportsplex
36 mezzanine project, appropriated in FY2014-19 CIP, to be combined within the field house for
37 efficiencies in operation and cost.
38
39 On September 15, 2015 the Board approved a set of criteria supporting the Design-Build
40 method of capital project delivery (authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly in 2013),
41 as well as its application with the Sportsplex Field House project.
42
43 On February 11, 2016 Orange County received eight responses to its Request for
44 Qualifications ("RFQ") issued on January 14, 2016 for Design-Build services for the Sportsplex
45 Field House in accordance with North Carolina Procurement Law regarding procurement of
46 Design-Build services. A staff panel consisting of members from the Manager's Office, the
47 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation ("DEAPR"), the Sportsplex
48 Management Staff, Finance &Administrative Services, and Asset Management Services
49 evaluated presentations of selected firms and agreed to recommend the TA Loving Company to
50 serve as the Design- Builder for this project.
17
1
2 The site has two small residential units on site that will be de-constructed as part of the project.
3 One unit is not salvageable; however Asset Management and Housing, Human Relations and
4 Community Development staff continue to analyze options with County affordable housing
5 partners to potentially relocate and rehabilitate the second residential unit in order to keep it in
6 the affordable housing inventory. Disposition of this housing unit would be confirmed prior to the
7 start of construction.
8
9 The projected timeline for this project is as follows:
10 Activity Estimated Date Range
11 BOCC Authorization for Design-Build Agreement and GMP; approval for project to move
12 forward within Spring Financing package: May 2, 2017
13 Construction Period: July 2017 - March 2018
14 Occupation: April 2018
15
16 Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, made the following PowerPoint
17 presentation:
18
19 Sportsplex Fieldhouse
20 Orange County, North Carolina
21 5.2.2017
22
23 Purpose
24 • Approve Design-Build agreement and Guaranteed Maximum Price:
25 o TA Loving Company— Goldsboro, NC
26 o GMP— not to exceed $3,714,000
27 • Authorize Chair to sign agreement upon County Attorney review
28 • Authorize County Manager to execute amendments to the GMP up to the Project
29 Budget
30
31 Overview
32 • Background
33 • Sportsplex Fieldhouse Vision
34 • Program Overview
35 • Construction Schedule
36 • Feedback and Questions
37
38 Background
39 • 1994 —Triangle Sportsplex constructed
40 • 2005 — County acquisition, engaged professional management
41 • 2009 — Passmore Center addition, major Sportsplex renovations
42 • 2012 — Fieldhouse, 2nd mezzanine envisioned
43 • 2014 — Land acquisition for fieldhouse
44 • 2015 — 2nd mezzanine vision study/schematic plan
45 • 2016 — Fieldhouse Design- Build engagement with TA Loving
46
47 John Stock presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
48
49 Orange County Sportsplex: Situational Analysis
18
1 • Classes overcrowded during prime times.
2 • Shortage of Courts and Turf for programs.
3 • Insufficient Family and Single User Change Facilities.
4 • Pre-school, After-school and Camp demand exceeds space Critical to needs of
5 families in Central/Northern Orange County
6
7 Field House Vision
8 • Field House addresses Orange County wide need for Courts; Turf; Children's Care
9 • Completes vision of a state of the art, multi-venue, community gathering place
10 promoting healthy lifestyles for all ages from toddlers to seniors.
11 o Combat childhood obesity; Type II Diabetes; physical wellness challenges of
12 aging adults.
13 o National class model of what is possible for multi-generational, diverse wellness
14 programming through an effective public/private partnership.
15
16 Field House
17 The Sportsplex is all about family, fun and fitness for all ages and abilities!
18 • Expanded Fitness Center addresses diverse needs of broad member base.
19 • Two Regulation sized Courts.
20 • Turf Field.
21 • Children's Center for Preschool, Afterschool, Camps.
22 • Quality programs, academies, leagues for all ages.
23 • Seniors programs like Pickleball
24
25 Orange County Sportsplex:
26 2017 Status
27 • Sportsplex acquired in 2005: 800 members; annual losses of $1,000,000.
28 • Today: 6,000 members. Annual customer visits of 700,000!
29 • FY17-18 consolidated Sportsplex Revenues projected at $3,400,000 (double 2005
30 levels ...a 10% annual growth rate).
31 • Operating Costs contained, resulting in operating surplus of$550,000 ($1.7million net
32 annual operating surplus improvement from 2005).
33 RFP will produce similar growth and incremental financial results from the Field House
34 investment by the County.
35
36 New Court and Turf Programs
37 • Programs transferred to the Sportsplex from other RFP facilities:
38 o Lil Kickers
39 o Lil Dunkers
40 o Lil Cheer
41 o Lil Sluggers
42 o Futsol
43 o Soccer, Lacrosse, Basketball and Volleyball Leagues
44 o Sports Schools/Academies
45 o Gymnastics
46 o Opportunities for turf and court programs similar to current partnership with UNC
47 on swim clinics.
48
49 Fitness Expansion
19
1 • Cardio/Aerobics for Adults
2 • Senior Programs
3 • Specialty Weight area
4 • Separates Workout styles
5 • Family/Single User Change Rooms
6
7 Field House Financial Summary
8 • Board approved Field House appropriation is $3,750,000.
9 • Sportsplex membership will grow from 6,000 to 8,000 (33%). Combined with new
10 programming, Field House operations to generate $7,200,000 incremental revenues
11 over the first six years.
12 • By leveraging RFP staff/management resources, combined six year operating surplus of
13 $3,754,000 will reimburse the appropriated costs.
14 • Synergies with existing operations will facilitate the combined annual operating
15 surpluses of$1.4 million, which can be re-invested in countywide wellness and
16 recreation.
17
18 John Stock, Sportsplex General Manager, introduced the company that will be building
19 the Fieldhouse: TA Loving.
20 Ken Redfoot, Architect, presented this portion of the PowerPoint, and reviewed the
21 plans for the Field House.
22 Commissioner Rich asked if there will be spaces for bicycle parking.
23 Ken Redfoot said the Hillsborough approval process has just begun, and more details
24 will be incorporated going forward. He said bicycle parking can be accommodated.
25 Commissioner Rich asked if there is bicycle parking at the current facility.
26 John Stock said no, and staff is investigating costs for bicycle parking.
27 Commissioner Rich asked to find out if this is part of the Hillsborough guidelines, so that
28 bicycle parking can be included.
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the size of the basketball courts in the gymnasium could
30 be given.
31 Ken Redfoot said the courts are 50 x 84 feet, which is regulation high school court size.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any thought has been given to using solar or geothermal
33 technology for this new facility, or retrofitting the existing facility.
34 Jeff Thompson said staff is analyzing retrofitting the building with the high performance
35 building standards analysis, and the size of the facility makes it challenging from a cost
36 standpoint.
37 Commissioner McKee referred to the 54-space parking lot, and asked if, given heavy
38 use of the current parking lot and the expansion numbers, parking will be expanded or a
39 parking deck considered.
40 John Stock said a parking study was completed a year ago, and maximum capacity was
41 only reached when large meets or events are occurring. He said staff has changed the nature
42 of these meets to allow for easier flow. He said the study was repeated again recently and
43 there was only a 10% increase in numbers with the maximum still not being reached. He said if
44 growth continues at its current rate, then parking will be an issue.
45 Commissioner McKee said increased public transportation may help. He said any
46 improvements only drives more people to want to use this facility, and the mode of
47 transportation will be automobiles. He said he is glad that staff has done parking studies.
48 Commissioner Jacobs thanked John Stock for the good work that he is doing and his
49 willingness to work with the County.
20
1 Commissioner Jacobs said when he got on the Board he got a lecture from senior
2 Commissioners that minority children had no place to go swimming. He asked John Stock if he
3 knows the percentage of pool users that are minorities, and, if not, could he do some estimation
4 and explore ways to attract these communities to use the facility.
5 John Stock said he could only offer a guess, but he said schools with large numbers of
6 African American students are using the facility. He said the summer program is a tool to bring
7 in more minority students. He said there is room for improvement, and he would try and get a
8 more precise number to the Board.
9 Jeff Thompson reviewed the project schedule.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if TA Loving pays a living wage, and Jeff Thompson said yes.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
13 for the Board to:
14 1) Award a Design-Build Agreement to TA Loving Company of Goldsboro, NC for the
15 Sportsplex Field House project with a Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") not-to-
16 exceed $3,714,000 to include this project within the spring 2017 project financing
17 offering scheduled to close in June 2017;
18 2) Approve and authorize the Chair to execute the necessary paperwork upon review of
19 the County Attorney; and
20 3) Authorize the County Manager to execute any amendments to the GMP up to the
21 project budget.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 7. Reports
26
27 a. Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness 2016 Report
28 The Board received a report on the 2016 activities of the Orange County Partnership to
29 End Homelessness (OCPEH), and also reviewed the homeless service system map.
30 Allison De Marco, OCPEH Leadership Team Chair, reviewed the background
31 information below:
32
33 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness was created in 2008
34 to coordinate funding and activities to end homelessness in Orange County. OCPEH is jointly
35 funded by Orange County (39%) and the Towns of Carrboro (15%), Chapel Hill (41%), and
36 Hillsborough (5%).
37
38 Corey Root, Homeless Programs Coordinator, said she submitted the business report,
39 Point-In-Time (PIT) count, and the Plan to End Homelessness to the BOCC. She referred to
40 the last page of the information, the Homeless Systems Map (Attachment 4), and said she
41 would like to focus on this page tonight.
42 Corey Root said this map contains a great deal of information. She said there are
43 different paths through the system, depending on a person's need; such as being at risk of
44 homelessness, newly homeless, and long-term homelessness. She said the goal for everyone
45 is to secure permanent housing as quickly as possible.
46 Corey Root highlighted the three areas of the map: Green - at risk of homelessness;
47 Yellow- currently homeless; and Purple - stable housing. She said this map also conveys all of
48 the different players in Orange County that are working to end homelessness.
49 Corey Root said OC Connect is the coordinated entry system and is an initiative that
50 seeks to systemize the way people enter, are assessed, and referred for homeless services.
21
1 She said this system minimizes the confusion for those in need of services, and this system is
2 in line with federal mandates to address homelessness.
3 Corey Root said the gaps in the system are seen on the map in pink, and these areas
4 are: diversion funding, accessible and housing focused shelter, street outreach, multi-service
5 center- 24 hour bathrooms, landlord partnership initiative, and income based rental units.
6 Corey Root reviewed the options for stable permanent housing.
7 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the therapeutic court, and said this already exists.
8 Corey Root said this is known as outreach court.
9 Commissioner Rich asked if there are resources available to house the homeless when
10 they first come in need of shelter.
11 Corey Root said there are out-of-county shelters. She said there are some hotel/motel
12 vouchers programs, but these are short term and often uncoordinated. She said some people
13 elect to stay outside, but do not want to do this for the rest of their lives; they still seek
14 permanent housing.
15 Commissioner Rich asked if there are agreements with the Inter-Faith Council (IFC) to
16 let people stay on white flag nights.
17 Corey Root said yes. She said IFC has 17 beds for single men on white flag nights, and
18 2-3 beds for single women. She said white flag nights are when the temperature is forecast to
19 be below 40 degrees, in the months between October and April.
20 Commissioner Rich asked if it is difficult to get people in shelters during this time.
21 Corey Root said this is the second year that white flag nights have existed at the current
22 Community House. She said there are a lot of barriers with the current neighbor plan, and
23 increased communication is being worked on. She said street outreach would help greatly with
24 communication.
25 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is any information for 2017.
26 Corey Root said the overall number is 127, and she will have a full breakdown of
27 statistics at a later date.
28 Commissioner Marcoplos said he has been to three OCPEH meetings so far and is
29 learning a lot. He said he is impressed with the work and is glad to be a part of it.
30
31 b. Countywide Radio Communications Needs Assessment and Alternatives Report
32 The Board received a presentation on the Countywide Radio Communications needs
33 assessment and alternatives analysis as well as potential cost share models for sharing the
34 cost of the system with public safety agencies in the County, and provide feedback on the
35 project and the funding recommendations currently contained in the Manager's Recommended
36 Capital Investment Plan.
37 Dinah Jeffries, Emergency Services Director, reviewed the following background
38 information:
39
40 BACKGROUND:
41 The existing Orange County public safety radio communications systems have served first
42 responder agencies adequately for many years. However, multiple system components are at
43 or near end of life, spare parts are hard to find, and vendor support will be ending in the next
44 few years. Existing radio systems do not have the built-in redundancy that prevents system
45 outages in the event of component failure or other disasters. As Orange County continues to
46 grow, first responder agencies have recognized that current public safety radio systems do not
47 meet today's radio coverage, capacity, and resiliency requirements.
48
49 Recognizing these factors, the County engaged Federal Engineering, Inc. (FE) in a multiphase
50 approach to conduct a system evaluation, planning and alternatives development study. This
22
1 presentation to the Board of Commissioners will summarize the work completed during the
2 initial evaluation and planning phase. The second step in the evaluation and planning phase
3 involves a detailed evaluation of the selected alternative radio system approaches, developing
4 migration plans, and finalizing budgetary cost estimates. Based on the funding approach
5 approved in the Capital Investment Plan, subsequent phases of this radio project could include
6 the development of a competitive request for proposals, assistance during the procurement
7 process, technical evaluations of vendor proposals, and vendor negotiations assistance
8 resulting in an executed vendor contract.
9
10 Dinah Jeffries introduced Cliff Brown from Federal Engineering, who made the following
11 PowerPoint presentation:
12
13 Orange County Replacement Radio Project
14 Board Of County Commissioners Meeting - May 2, 2017
15
16 Agenda
17 • Replacement Radio Project Purpose
18 • Replacement Radio System Architecture
19 • Replacement Radio Project Overview/ Needs
20 • Alternatives Considered / Estimated Costs
21 • Recommended Solution / Estimated Costs
22 • Agency Cost Allocations
23 • Next Steps
24
25 Project Purpose
26 Determine the most economical, efficient, reliable, and state-of-the-art method for designing
27 and provisioning a countywide radio communications system to meet long term voice, paging,
28 and voice interoperability needs
29
30 Radio System Architecture —graphic
31
32 Project Overview— Scope
33 • Needs and Requirements
34 • Alternatives Analysis and Cost Estimates
35 • Recommended System Solution -- We are here
36 • Technical Specifications/RFP Development
37 • Procurement Support
38
39 Project Overview- graphic
40
41 Project Overview— Needs
42 Users — Emergency
43 • Law Enforcement
44 • Fire
45 • EMS
46 • Emergency Management
47 Users — Non-emergency
48 • Public Works
49 • Transit
23
1 • Schools
2 • Animal Control
3 • OWASA
4 • Solid Waste
5
6 Project Overview— Needs
7 • Radio coverage improvements
8 o Portable radios —outdoor
9 o Portable radios — indoor
10 o Leverage new sites for multiple purposes
11 • Radio system capacity improvements
12 o Increase number of channels to reduce congestion
13 o Leverage new microwave system - multiple purposes
14 • Local system administration
15 o Add users
16 o Change aliases
17 o Modify talk groups
18 • Interoperability (ability to communicate with others and mutual aid)
19 o Intra-County
20 o Inter-County
21 • System availability improvements
22 o Direct County control of system elements
23 o Direct County control of system maintenance
24 o Redundancy
25 • Estimated costs
26 • Migration plans
27
28 Existing Radio Systems
29 • VIPER (Voice Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders) — 700/800 MHz P25 —
30 all public safety users
31 o No local system administration
32 o Single points of failure/ lack of redundancy
33 o Expansion possible— current model: purchase equipment and give to State
34 • UHF — backup system for Chapel Hill
35 • VHF —fire paging, schools, animal services, backup for multiple public safety agencies
36
37 Alternatives Considered
38 • VIPER 700/800 MHz P25 channel expansion
39 • Standalone 700/800 MHz P25
40 • Shared 700/800 MHz P25 system (Durham County)
41 • Standalone VHF Analog
42 Standalone alternatives consist of building blocks that can be combined between alternatives
43
44 VIPER Channel Expansion
45 • Add channels to existing VIPER sites
46 • Improves capacity—fewer busies/blocked calls
47 • Lowest cost of alternatives
48 • Does not address
49 o Required radio coverage improvements
24
1 o Required system availability/redundancy improvements/single points of failure
2 o Required local system administration improvements
3 o System use by public services (schools, public works, transit, animal services,
4 OWASA, solid waste)
5
6 Standalone 700/800 MHz P25
7 • Dedicated 700/800 MHz P25 system for County, serving all users (now and in future)
8 • New system control equipment (redundant)
9 • New radio site equipment (sites, towers, shelters, radio channel equipment, microwave)
10 • New consoles (or use existing), control stations (to access "other" systems)
11 • Retention of most existing portable/mobile radios
12 • Provides improved:
13 o Outdoor and indoor radio coverage
14 o Capacity for all users, expandable
15 o Local system administration
16 o System availability/reliability (redundancy— no single point of failure)
17 • Sites built for 700/800 MHz P25 leveraged for use by VHF system, County broadband
18 • Dedicated microwave for radio systems, leveraged for use for County data, County
19 broadband
20
21 Shared System — 700/800 MHz P25
22 • Same as standalone 700/800 MHz P25 system EXCEPT
23 o System control equipment provided Durham (significant initial capital cost
24 savings)
25 o Cost sharing model used between Durham and Orange County for ongoing
26 shared equipment, system upgrades, and maintenance
27 o Interlocal agreement to be executed (governance, cost sharing)
28
29 700/800 MHz P25 Radio Coverage - map
30
31 700/800 MHz P25 Radio Coverage - map
32
33 700/800 MHz P25 Radio Coverage - map
34
35 700/800 MHz P25 Radio Coverage - chart
36
37 Standalone VHF Radio Coverage - map
38
39 Standalone VHF Radio Coverage - map
40
41 Standalone VHF Radio Coverage - map
42
43 Standalone VHF Radio Coverage - chart
44
45 Standalone VHF Radio Coverage - chart
46
47 Alternatives — Estimated Costs - chart
48
49 Recommended Replacement Radio Solution
25
1 • Excellent County stakeholder participation throughout project
2 • County Radio Team reviewed needs and requirements —foundation for alternatives
3 • County Radio Team reviewed alternatives
4 • Consensus and agreement by entire County Radio team on the recommended
5 replacement radio solution
6 • VIPER— no additional channels to be added
7 • Combination of two alternatives — Shared System (Durham) and VHF
8 • Implement systems in stages (steps)
9 • Long term 700/800 MHz P25 solution
10 o 700/800 MHz trunked P25 for all users — countywide radio coverage
11 o 17 site buildout
12 • VHF solution
13 o Lower cost radio units (than P25) for public service
14 o 4-site buildout
15
16 Recommended Replacement Radio Solution
17 • Step 1
18 o Share Durham system control equipment (core)
19 o Procure and build 4 700/800 MHz P25 sites in Chapel Hill and Carrboro area,
20 connect to Durham core, and dispatch center consoles
21 • Step 2
22 o Procure and build 4 VHF sites in County (use sites that will also be used for
23 700/800 MHz P25)
24 • Step 3 (could be divided into multiple steps)
25 o Procure and build the balance of the 17 700/800 MHz P25 sites
26
27 Recommended Replacement Radio Solution - map
28
29 Recommended Replacement Radio Solution - map
30
31 Recommended Replacement Radio Solution - map
32
33 Estimated Costs - chart
34
35 Agency Cost Allocations
36 Potential Cost Allocations
37 • County provides new radio system infrastructure for emergency and non-emergency
38 users
39 • Each agency purchases portables, mobiles, and control stations, and programming for
40 radio units
41 • Each agency pays a usage fee to the County for use of the new system
42 System Usage Fee
43 • County will need to define formula and basis for fees
44 • Examples from other similar systems
45 o Fee based on number of talk groups (channels), and unique features
46 (encryption, GPS/location, individual call) — monthly recurring per unit (example —
47 South Carolina)
48 o Fee based on number of radio units —one-time fee as radio unit is added
49 (example: $250/unit—one time, $32/radio/month)
26
1
2 Next Steps
3 • County approval of recommended replacement radio solution
4 • Confirm project stages/steps and schedules
5 • Identify and secure funding
6 • Define procurement approach (competitive RFP, negotiation with vendor)
7 • Develop technical specifications/RFP for long-term system solutions, and require
8 buildout in stages
9 o Vendor guaranteed radio coverage (outdoor, indoor)
10 o Vendor guaranteed grade of service (capacity)
11 o Vendor guaranteed system availability/reliability
12 • Procurement process
13 • Negotiation and contract award
14 • Implementation
15
16 FE Orange County Project Team
17 Cliff Brown: Orange County Program Manager
18 cbrown @fedeng.com
19 704-451-5090
20
21 Travis LePage
22 Orange County Project Director
23 tlepage @fedeng.com
24 585-507-9731
25 Questions
26
27 Commissioner McKee clarified that the differential between using Durham County's
28 CORE system and Orange County's CORE system is $3 million.
29 Cliff Brown said it is about $2.8 million.
30 Commissioner McKee said the cost is $3 million more than the $29 million shown there,
31 and the end result, if Orange County were to build its own independent system; or would it be
32 more than the $3 million.
33 Cliff Brown referred to alternative 2 on page 25, and said that is a stand-alone system
34 that includes Orange County's own core. He said that is not sharing anything, and a shared
35 system is $26 million.
36 Commissioner McKee said 17 towers will be needed, if 200 foot towers are used. He
37 asked if the number of towers needed could be identified, if the towers were 300 feet.
38 Cliff Brown said he does not yet have this information. He said 200 feet is a magic
39 number, both within the County's UDO and with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He
40 said towers over 200 feet must be marked with a light, and most residents have concerns about
41 this.
42 Commissioner McKee asked if it would be possible to explore going to a higher tower
43 and reducing the number of towers, so that money could be saved and used for the CORE
44 System. He said in a shared system, Orange County will not be the primary partner; and while
45 there can be good faith negotiations, there will always be unanticipated events that occur. He
46 said potential problems will need to be heavily analyzed if a shared system is to be considered.
47 Commissioner McKee asked if the reduction of towers, due to increased heights, could
48 be researched.
27
1 Cliff Brown said yes. He said, on average, a brand new site for a tower is about $1.4
2 million, including equipment, prepping the land, etc. He said higher towers cost more money,
3 but there would be less land costs.
4 Commissioner Marcoplos said he lives 11 miles outside of Carrboro, and suggested
5 putting the tall towers in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, as the blinking lights would blend in with the
6 urban landscape; and put the unblinking lights in the rural areas. He said to use a hybrid
7 system of towers.
8 Cliff Brown said guidance from the County is welcomed. He said existing structures are
9 being considered as well, such as the University of North Carolina (UNC) and a building just
10 over the Durham County line. He said the 700-800 system, which is the long term solution for
11 the County, are also VHF sites, which would eliminate duplication.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said as far as siting taller towers, the County looked at bird
13 flyways in considering the location of higher towers, which kill birds. He said lower towers were
14 preferred for this reason, and Craig Benedict may have that information. He said the Audubon
15 Society may also be helpful.
16 Chair Dorosin asked if the County will have to pay fees to Durham if it uses a shared
17 system.
18 Cliff Brown said yes, and this cost is not factored into the cost estimates reviewed this
19 evening. He said the costs identified this evening are only capital costs. He said the fees
20 depend on how many users are in the system, but the initial quotes range from $50,000-
21 $100,000 annually.
22 Chair Dorosin asked if VIPER will let them use their towers.
23 Cliff Brown said it depends on who owns the tower, and some will allow use, and some
24 will not.
25 Chair Dorosin asked if the recommendation is to abandon VIPER.
26 Cliff Brown said yes, and the main reasons are: coverage, capacity, and reliability.
27 Chair Dorosin said asked if there is an option between the $2 million and the $30 million;
28 and it seems like that is the $26 million option.
29 Cliff Brown said this is recommended answer. He said the VHF solution would provide
30 County coverage, and consists of 10 sites and costs $10 million. He said this would be
31 conventional analogue, and VHF involves a lot of interference and skip. He said new
32 frequencies would be needed, which may be difficult due to how long VHF has been in use. He
33 said there are grants available, and usually require systems to be P25 and have interoperability.
34 He said these requirements promote counties coming together to create regional systems.
35 Chair Dorosin asked if there is a lot of grant funding available.
36 Cliff Brown said there are multiple grants per year, and the amounts vary greatly.
37 Chair Dorosin asked if other areas are leaving VIPER.
38 Cliff Brown said some are leaving, and some are joining the system. He said there are
39 a large variety of radio systems across the State.
40 Bonnie Hammersley said staff wanted the BOCC to have this report before discussing
41 capital prioritization next week. She said no action is required this evening.
42 Chair Dorosin said the proposed plan notes that the first four towers should be in the
43 southern end of the County. He said there seems to be good coverage in this part of the
44 County already, and asked if these towers should be put in more rural areas where coverage is
45 lacking.
46 Cliff Brown said that plan would move the higher quantity of users into a new system,
47 where they are not competing for fewer channels on the VIPER system. He said this would
48 offer the quickest relief to the problems with VIPER, to the largest number of users. He said
49 P25 is the industry standard and is connected to all funding streams, but VIPER is P25 and so
28
1 this would be retained as a backup system. He said all surrounding counties are P25, which
2 allows for interoperability and mutual aid.
3
4 c. Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report and Next Steps
5 The Board received a presentation on the Bicycle Safety Task Force Report, and
6 provided direction on next steps.
7 Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner II, reviewed the following
8 background information
9
10 BACKGROUND:
11 The process that led to the development of the BSTF Report began in November 2014 with a
12 Board petition to review policies related to bicycle safety and working with stakeholder groups to
13 develop a culture of sharing the road. The Manager asked Planning staff to work with the
14 OUTBoard to set up a subgroup to discuss and develop a plan. Planning staff proposed a plan
15 to address the petition regarding OUTBoard/Bicycle Safety, which was provided as an
16 information item to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on February 3, 2015. The
17 materials and minutes for this meeting can be found at the following link:
18 http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/0/doc/36289/Page1.aspx.
19
20 The staff plan addressed representation from the BOCC, resident participation, public outreach,
21 task objectives, and ultimately a report back to the BOCC with recommendations. These initial
22 tasks were addressed through the work of an OUTBoard subcommittee group, and approved
23 by the full OUTBoard in May 2015. The subcommittee's report was forwarded to the BOCC in
24 June 2015 where its recommendations were accepted and the staff was directed to return in the
25 fall with information relevant to next steps. A description of this process is provided in the first
26 attachment of the BSTF Report (Attachment 1). The subcommittee's report is provided in the
27 second attachment of the Report.
28
29 Through discussions with the BOCC and the County Manager from November 2015 to January
30 2016 it was decided that the best way to implement recommendations of the OUTBoard's
31 bicycle safety recommendations would be through a task force with a defined charge and set
32 term. It was also agreed that the general focus of the task force should be on education and
33 communication.
34
35 At its February 2016 meeting the OUTBoard made recommendations regarding the BSTF
36 membership, charge and term and forwarded it to the BOCC for review at March, May, and
37 June 2016 meetings. The BSTF Resolution and members were appointed on June 21, 2016.
38 Commissioner Renee Price was appointed as a liaison to the Task Force. The Resolution,
39 which includes the criteria for the BSTF members, the Charge, and the direction to report back
40 to the BOCC, is provided in the third attachment of the Report. The list of appointed BSTF
41 members is provided in the fourth attachment of the Report.
42 Bicycle Safety in Orange County, NC Report
43
44 The BSTF met numerous times over a six-month period, with much research and deliberation
45 resulting in the attached Report with attachments and appendix. The BSTF developed a set of
46 goals, which is provided in the appendix of the Report; evaluated a bicycle crash report for the
47 County (the fifth attachment of the Report); reviewed existing and new bicycle laws (the sixth
48 attachment of the Report); and developed possible actions and time and cost estimates (the
49 seventh attachment of the Report).
50
29
1 Through the process, the BSTF endorsed a public education and awareness campaign directed
2 at all rural road users. The campaign, "Drive Safely, Ride Safely" is designed to foster mutual
3 respect and shared interest in road safety, and focuses on the premise that most motorists and
4 cyclists want to share the road safely. The Report recommends a series of actions centered on
5 a public education and awareness campaign, improved data collection and measurements, and
6 traffic safety improvements. This process and the campaign are described in the first several
7 pages of the Report.
8
9 The Report also includes suggestions for implementation and potential actions with estimates
10 regarding responsible parties, range of expected expense and timeline. The BSTF recommends
11 the creation of an implementation task force as well as a future task force to study infrastructure
12 improvements in areas of the County where cycling is especially popular. The implementation
13 portion of the Report is found on pages 6-10 of the Report.
14
15 The BSTF has recommended and requested a budget of $15,000 for FY 2017-18 and
16 appropriate County staff support to launch the campaign. Cycling advocacy groups and local
17 civic groups would also be approached, along with other possible partners, to provide volunteer
18 resources and possible additional funding to assist in implementing the campaign. Additionally,
19 participation from the County Sheriff and other law enforcement agencies, Orange County
20 Schools, EMS and others is anticipated to help encourage safe ways to share the road. The
21 recommended funding request is found on page 10 of the Report.
22
23 Abigaile Pittman made the following PowerPoint presentation:
24
25 Bicycle Safety Task Force
26 May 2, 2017
27 BOCC Meeting
28 Final Report
29
30 Purpose
31 • To receive a presentation on the Bicycle Safety Task Force Report and provide direction
32 on next steps.
33 Full Bicycle Safety Task Force Report provided as Attachment 1.
34
35 Background
36 • BOCC created BSTF June, 2016
37 • BSTF Goal: recommendations to improve road safety for cyclists and motorists in the
38 unincorporated areas of County
39 • 18 members with broad stakeholder representation (see Attachment 4 of Report)
40 • Full timeline (see Attachment 1 of report)
41
42 BSTF Charge
43 • Attachments 2 and 3 of Report (proposed actions for Report and adopted Resolution);
44 • Develop a campaign for bicycle safety education and research;
45 • Develop an implementation timetable with estimated funding request information; and
46 • Develop a recommendation for funding.
47
48 PRIMARY REPORT COMPONENTS
49 • Set of Goals in Appendix of the Report;
30
1 • Campaign, "Drive Safely, Ride Safely" is designed to foster mutual respect and shared
2 interest in road safety; and
3 • A series of actions centered on a public education and awareness campaign, improved
4 data collection and measurements, and traffic safety improvements.
5
6 1-YEAR FUNDING REQUEST
7 • $15,000 for FY 17-18
8 o Posters and flyers
9 o Signage design and placement at entry points in county (5+)
10 o Bumper stickers/magnets
11 o Yard signs
12 o Website development and social media
13 o Launch campaign kickoff (signs, contests, ads, etc.)
14
15 OTHER REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
16 • BSTF Implementation Committee;
17 • County staff support to help launch the campaign; and
18 • Appointing a future committee to study infrastructure improvements in areas of the
19 county where cycling is especially popular.
20
21 OTHER RESOURCE GROUPS
22 • Cycling advocacy groups
23 • Local civic groups
24 • Orange County Schools
25 • NCDOT
26 • Law enforcements agencies
27 • EMS
28
29 Chair Dorosin asked if the budget request is based on supporting this drive safely/ride
30 safely program.
31 Abigaile Pittman said it would support the education and education campaign, and to
32 bring some awareness of safe bicycling.
33 Commissioner Rich asked if the website will live on the Orange County website, and if it
34 will be linked to the Towns.
35 Abigaile Pittman said yes, but there is limited flexibility on the design of the website, and
36 it would have to be a sub set of the Planning Department on the transportation site.
37 Commissioner Rich said she is concerned that people will not be able to find this
38 information.
39 Abigaile Pittman said she has voiced this same concern. She said it can be closer to
40 the front of the Planning Department's page.
41 Commissioner Rich said the Intergovernmental Parks work group is working on a lot of
42 maps that have different aspects, such as hiking, mountain biking, etc. She said some of these
43 maps may be able to be incorporated.
44 Commissioner Rich referred to the comment that change comes about through
45 education, not laws. She asked if examples could be provided of the type of education that can
46 be offered.
47 Heidi Perry, Chair of the Bicycle Safety Task Force and Outboard Chair, said this can be
48 done in a few ways, and they have heard from a member of the Highway Safety Research
49 Center, who had great influence on this philosophical approach. She said part of the kick off
31
1 campaign could include rewarding good behaviors, instead of focusing on the negatives. She
2 said the posters would be educational, as the laws on this topic are often misunderstood.
3 Commissioner Marcoplos said large groups of bike riders are the peskiest of all. He
4 asked if there are legal solutions to this issue, such as maximum group size, spacing on the
5 road, etc.
6 Heidi Perry said there are no laws, but there are best practices, which can be found on
7 the bikewalknc website. She said it is hard for a large group to break into smaller groups
8 safely.
9 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the use of helmets was discussed.
10 Heidi Perry said it is a state law that anyone under the age of 16 has to wear a helmet,
11 and organized groups/rides require helmets to be worn.
12 Chair Dorosin said he is open to talking about this budget request.
13 Bonnie Hammersley said it is not a part of her recommended budget, but she has asked
14 Todd McGee to work with this group.
15 Commissioner Jacobs asked Abigaile Pittman if she checked with the NC Department of
16 Transportation (DOT) to see if they provide any of these materials as part of their bicycle
17 program.
18 Abigaile Pittman said there is a desire for the campaign to have a more branded and
19 cohesive look. She said the budget request took the in-house graphic designer in to account.
20 Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking the Visitor's Bureau (VB) to help with the
21 promotion of events and information. He said the budget may shrink if the partnerships
22 increase.
23 Heidi Perry said the Visitor's Bureau is very supportive, but the committee desires the
24 County to have some buy in into this report and project.
25 Chair Dorosin said to bring this item back during the BOCC budget discussions.
26 Abigaile Pittman said one of the most expensive items is signage on the roadways.
27
28 8. Consent Agenda
29
30 • Removal of any items from Consent Agenda
31 Commissioner Jacobs —Item i
32
33 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
36 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
41
42 i. Carrboro Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Expansion Request— Highway 54 West
43 The Board considered sending the Town of Carrboro a letter in support of the Town's request to
44 move forward to a public hearing regarding extension of its ETJ over 2.9 acres of land along
45 Highway 54 West.
46
47 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to request engaging the Town of Carrboro in
48 discussion on areas of joint land use concerns. He suggested for the Planning Directors to
49 meet about mutual interest and possible future change, and an elected official could be
50 included if so desired.
32
1 Commissioner Jacobs also asked Bonnie Hammersley if she would meet with the
2 Carrboro Manager about this topic.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
5 approve sending the Town of Carrboro a letter in support of the Town's request to move
6 forward to a public hearing regarding extension of its ETJ over 2.9 acres of land along Highway
7 54 West.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 a. Minutes
12 The Board approved the minutes from April 6 and 18, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the
13 Board.
14 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
15 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
16 property tax values for three taxpayers with a total of three bills that will result in a reduction of
17 revenue, in accordance with NCGS.
18 c. Contract with New River Tire Recycling - Load, Transport, and Recycle or Dispose
19 of Scrap Tires
20 The Board approved a contract with New River Tire Recycling, LLC of Pilot Mountain, North
21 Carolina for the Loading, Transporting, and Recycling or Disposal of Scrap Tires and authorized
22 the Manager to execute the contract.
23 d. Contract Extension for Household Hazardous Waste Collection - Clean Harbors
24 Environmental Services
25 The Board approved an extension of the contract with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, a
26 Massachusetts corporation, for the collection, processing and disposal of Household Hazardous
27 Wastes and authorized the Manager to execute the contract.
28 e. Adoption of the NC Fire Code Inspection Schedule
29 The Board approved a revision to the County's fire code inspection schedule in order to comply
30 with Section 106— Inspections.
31 f. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2017
32 The Board changed to the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2017 to add a
33 closed session on Monday, May 22, 2017 for staff evaluations.
34 g. Two-Thirds General Obligation Bonds
35 The Board adopted a preliminary resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for the
36 issuance of $5.9 million in two-thirds General Obligation Bonds to support both school systems
37 capital requirements for renovation and improvement of school facilities, with the two-thirds
38 bond proceeds replacing the General Fund pay-as-you go funding for both school districts'
39 renovations and facility improvements in FY 2017-18.
40 h. Agreement with Flinchum Sales Tax Consulting for Sales Tax Refunds
41 The Board entered into an agreement with Flinchum Sales Tax Consulting to determine if the
42 County is due additional sales tax refunds from the North Carolina Department of Revenue
43 (NCDOR) and authorized the Manager to sign.
44 j. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule — Clarification
45 of Recently Approved Subdivision Regulations
46 The Board approved process components and schedules for a staff initiated Unified
47 Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment.
48 k. Resolution to Endorse Orange County's Draft Transportation Project Lists for the
49 Burlington-Graham and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
50 Organizations and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (2020-2029)
33
1 The Board approved a resolution (Attachment 1), which is incorporated by reference, endorsing
2 transportation projects within the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
3 (BGMPO), Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) MPO and the Triangle Area Rural Planning
4 Organization (TARPO) planning areas for State scoring and ultimate consideration of inclusion
5 in the 2020-2029 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
6 I. National Small Business Week Proclamation
7 The Board approved a proclamation whereby Orange County joins the Small Business
8 Administration to designate the week of April 30 through May 6, 2017 as National Small
9 Business Week, and honor small businesses for their contributions to the economy of the
10 nation, state and county and authorized the Chair to sign.
11 m. Historic Preservation Month Proclamation
12 The Board approved a proclamation designating the month of May 2017 as Historic
13 Preservation Month in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
14
15 9. County Manager's Report
16
17 Projected May 9, 2017 Regular Work Session Items
18 Financial Policies Discussion (General Fund and Debt Capacity)
19 2017-2022 Capital Investment Plan — Project Prioritization Discussion
20
21 10. County Attorney's Report
22 John Roberts said on May 16th the Board will see an item addressing impact fees and a
23 possible method for lower fees for student housing projects.
24
25 Chair Dorosin asked that they forego the closed session tonight and move it to the May
26 9th meeting and the Board agreed by consensus.
27
28 11. *Appointments
29
30 a. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
31 The Board considered making appointments to the Adult Care Home Community
32 Advisory Committee.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
35 appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
36
37 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #1) "At-Large" position for Cresha (Christine)
38 Cianciolo expiring 03/31/2019.
39 • Appointment to a third full term (Position #4) "At-Large" position for Max Mason expiring
40 06/30/2019.
41 • Appointment to a partial* term (Position #8) "At-Large" position for Gloria Brown expiring
42 06/30/2018.
43 • Appointment to a partial** term (Position #9) "At-Large" position for William Lang
44 expiring 03/31/2019.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 b. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments
49 The Board considered making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory
50 Board.
34
1 DEFERRED to May 16th meeting
2
3 c. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
4 The Board considered making appointments to the Nursing Home Community Advisory
5 Committee.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
8 appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
9
10 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #4) "At-Large" representative for Jerry
11 Schreiber expiring 06/30/2020.
12 • Appointment to a one year training term (Position #6) "At-Large One Year Training "
13 position for Karen Macklin expiring 05/02/2018.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 12. Information Items
18
19 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
20 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
21 • Tax Assessor's Report — Releases/Refunds under $100
22 • Memo Regarding Road Maintenance in Perry Hills Subdivision
23
24 13. Closed Session
25 Deferred
26
27 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
28 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
29 143-318.11(a)(5).
30
31 Closed Session Minutes
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 14. Adjournment
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
38 adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 Mark Dorosin, Chair
43
44 Donna Baker
45 Clerk to the Board
46
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET WORK SESSION
6 May 9, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, May 9, 2017
10 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
21
22 The Board, by consensus, decided to consider the Resolution Opposing A Proposal
23 Before the UNC Board of Governors to Prohibit Centers and Institutes From Participating in
24 Litigation.
25 Commissioner Rich read the resolution:
26
27 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
28
29 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE
30 UNC BOARD OF GOVERNORS TO PROHIBIT CENTERS AND
31 INSTITUTES FROM PARTICIPATING IN LITIGATION
32
33 WHEREAS, at its March 2, 2017 meeting, the Board of Governors of the University of North
34 Carolina received a proposed policy that "seeks to protect the academic focus of Centers and
35 Institutes by restricting Centers and Institutes from participating in litigation"; and
36
37 WHEREAS, the proposed policy states that "no Center or Institute may...file a complaint,
38 motion, lawsuit or other legal claim in its own name or on behalf of any individual or entity
39 against any individual, entity, or government or otherwise act as legal counsel to any third party;
40 or employ or engage, directly or indirectly, any individual to serve as legal counsel or
41 representative to any party in any complaint, motion, lawsuit, or other legal claim against any
42 individual, entity, or government or to act as legal counsel to any third party"; and
43
44 WHEREAS, practically speaking, the proposal would affect only the state's two public law
45 schools at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina Central University;
46 and
47
48 WHEREAS, the ability of these centers and institutes to engage in litigation specifically against
49 state, city, and county governments serves as a proper check and balance in our country's
2
1 system of governance, where power is allocated among the three branches of government
2 under the Constitution; and
3
4 WHEREAS, the UNC Center for Civil Rights —which would effectively be eliminated by the
5 proposal — serves the memory of the late Julius Chambers, who received his undergraduate
6 degree at NCCU, received his law degree at UNC-Chapel Hill, practiced law as a prominent civil
7 rights attorney and argued several cases successfully before the United States Supreme Court,
8 and then later served as chancellor at NCCU before founding the Center; and
9
10 WHEREAS, the UNC Center for Civil Rights has a goal to "represent, educate, and advocate
11 for minority and low-income people, principally in the American South"; and
12
13 WHEREAS, the American Bar Association requires that law schools engage their students in a
14 minimum of six hours of experiential learning in order to retain accreditation; and
15
16 WHEREAS, centers and institutes exist at numerous law schools across the country to provide
17 exactly this type of experiential learning through litigation for law students during this phase of
18 their practical academic training; and
19
20 WHEREAS, residents of Orange County have benefited from representation and advocacy by
21 students, staff, and faculty of the UNC Center for Civil Rights; and
22
23 WHEREAS, the Board of Governors is currently receiving comments on the proposal;
24
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
26 urges the Board of Governors to reject the proposal to prohibit centers and institutes at its
27 public law schools from engaging in litigation.
28
29 This the 9th day of May 2017.
30
31 Penny Rich, Vice Chair
32 Orange County Board of Commissioners
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to
35 adopt/approve a resolution "OPPOSING A PROPOSAL BEFORE THE UNC BOARD OF
36 GOVERNORS TO PROHIBIT CENTERS AND INSTITUTES FROM PARTICIPATING IN
37 LITIGATION".
38
39 Chair Dorosin said he appreciated Commissioner Rich bringing this resolution forward,
40 and he is the Managing Attorney at the Center. He asked if Commissioner Rich would sign the
41 resolution on behalf of Orange County.
42 Chair Dorosin said the Center does not sue people in the name of UNC, but it
43 represents clients that are fighting against discrimination. He said the staff at the Center works
44 on behalf of its clients. He said the Center for Civil Rights does not receive any state funding;
45 rather grants, private foundations, and gifts fund all costs.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 1. Discuss and Prioritize Capital Projects in the Manager's Recommended FY 2017-
50 22 Capital Investment Plan
3
1
2 BACKGROUND:
3 On April 4, 2017, the Manager's Recommended FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)was
4 presented to the Board of County Commissioners (See Attachment 1). The Five-Year Plan
5 includes County Capital projects, School Capital projects (including Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
6 Schools, Orange County Schools, and Durham Technical Community College — Orange County
7 Campus), as well as Proprietary projects (including Water and Sewer, Solid Waste Enterprise
8 Fund, and Sportsplex Enterprise Fund).
9
10 The projects listed in the FY 2017-22 CIP totaled $274,423,538, with Debt Capacity Ratios
11 (Debt Service to General Fund revenues) ranging from 12.8% in FY 2017-18 to 17.4% in FY
12 2021-22. The County has a Debt Management Policy, which states, "The County will strive to
13 maintain its annual debt service costs at a level no greater than fifteen percent of general fund
14 revenues, including installment purchase debt". This policy is consistent with the Government
15 Finance Officers Association best practice.
16
17 On September 10, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners held a work session to review
18 potential General Obligation Bond Referendum packages and its impact on the CIP related to
19 Debt Capacity and Debt Affordability. The County's financial advisor, Davenport and Company,
20 presented a series of potential cases related to the Bond Referendum amount. As part of the
21 presentation, the CIP funding case included the FY 2015-20 Approved CIP and a $125 million
22 referendum. (See Attachment 3)
23
24 Tonight's discussion will be focused on prioritizing Capital projects to achieve the Debt Capacity
25 of 15%, to restructure debt to fund the scheduled CIP projects within the policy threshold, and
26 to reflect tax rate equivalent impacts to achieve Debt Affordability by minimizing or eliminating
27 cash flow shortfalls.
28
29 County staff has made an attempt to help remedy exceeding its policy and/or addressing the
30 cash flow shortfall by delaying or removing County Capital projects until they can be funded
31 within the parameters of the adopted policy. Also, consistent with Year 1 of the Manager
32 Recommended FY 2017-22 CIP, it includes substituting pay-as-you-go funds for school projects
33 to debt financing in Years 2-5. The following are the adjustments made to County Capital
34 projects, as reflected in FY 2017-22 CIP Alternative 1:
35
36 • Parking Lot Improvements - $1,625,000 moved from Year 5 to Year 6 related to OPT/
37 AMS North and Passmore Center improvements; and removed $300,000 for Efland-
38 Cheeks Community Center as it is included in the construction of a new Efland-Cheeks
39 Community Center in Year 3.
40 • Southern Orange Campus Expansion - changed funding source to $3,269,500 in
41 Medicaid Maximization funds for the Health clinics portion, and $1,555,500 in debt
42 financing.
43 • Information Technology Fiber Connectivity— moved $1,045,675 out of both Years 2
44 and 3 to Years 6-10.
45 • Information Technology Governance Council Initiatives — removed $500,000 in
46 Years 2 and 4.
47 • EMS Substations — moved $700,000 from Year 3 to Year 5; moved $1,500,000 from
48 Year 4 to Years 6-10, and moved $600,000 from Year 5 to years 6-10.
49 • Orange County Radio/Paging System Upgrades — removed $1,400,000 as there are
50 current funds within this project to cover this expense.
4
1 • Register of Deeds Automation — removed $400,000 for the software system purchase
2 as there are current funds within the Automation and Enhancement Preservation Fund
3 to
4 cover this expense.
5 • Mil!house Road Park— moved $300,000 from Year 2 to Year 4, and moved $6,400,000
6 from Year 3 to Year 5.
7 • Northeast District Park— moved $350,000 from Year 3 to Year 5, and moved
8 7,650,000 from Year 4 to Years 6-10.
9
10 The County's financial advisor, Davenport and Company, will present additional information
11 (See Attachment 3) regarding the following possible options to consider as it relates to
12 exceeding the policy and/or addressing cash flow shortfalls: (1) Consider alternative debt
13 restructuring flexibility from the Local Government Commission (LGC), in order to fund the
14 scheduled CIP projects within the policy threshold, and reduce cash flow shortfalls; (2)
15 Implement tax rate adjustments to minimize or eliminate cash flow shortfalls.
16
17 FINANCIAL IMPACT:
18 There is no immediate financial impact associated with discussion and prioritization of the FY
19 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan. It is a long-range financial planning tool with a financial
20 impact in FY 2017-18, if the first year of the CIP is approved by the Board of County
21 Commissioners with the adoption of the Annual Budget.
22
23 Ted Cole, Davenport and Company Senior Vice President, made the following
24 PowerPoint presentation:
25
26 County Tax Supported CIP Discussion Materials
27 Oranqe County, North Carolina
28
29 Credit Ratinq Overview and Peer Comparatives- qraph
30 Peer Comparative Introduction
31 • The County is currently rated AAA by Moody's Investors Service (May 2015), AAA by
32 Standard and Poor's (June 2015), and AAA by Fitch (June 2015).
33 • The following pages contain peer comparatives based on the Moody's AAA peer
34 counties listed below.
35 — National AAA Counties — 93 Credits
36 — North Carolina AAA Counties - 9 Credits
37 o Buncombe, Durham, Forsyth, Guilford, Mecklenburg, New Hanover,
38 Orange, Union, Wake
39
40 Historical Credit Spreads
41 • The County's credit rating has a direct impact on the cost of borrowing, which in turn
42 affects the County's debt capacity.
43 — The credit spread is the premium an issuer pays to the purchaser of their
44 bonds (i.e. higher interest rate) as compensation for increased credit risk.
45 — Since the financial downturn in September 2008, credit quality of issuers has
46 taken on a renewed importance to investors.
47 — The average spread for an A rated borrower has increased from 0.33% from
48 Nov 2004 — Dec 2008 to 0.70% since Dec 2008.
49
50 Ratinq Agency Methodology Updates - qraph
5
1 Moody's Qualitative Factors
2 Moody's
3 • On January 15, 2014, Moody's updated its US Local Governments General Obligation
4 Debt methodology and assumptions.
5 • Under the new methodology, an initial indicative rating is calculated from a weighted
6 average of four key factors:
7 • Below the line qualitative adjustments can be made based upon certain factors.
8
9 Rating Agency Methodology Updates
10 S&P
11 • On September 12, 2013, Standard & Poor's updated its US Local Governments General
12 Obligation Ratings methodology and assumptions.
13 • Under the new methodology, an initial indicative rating is calculated from a weighted
14 average of seven key factors:
15 • Up to a one-notch adjustment can be made from the indicative rating based on other
16 qualitative factors.
17 • US Local Governments General Obligation Ratings Methodology - graph
18 Fitch
19 • On April 18, 2016, Fitch updated its US Tax-Supported Rating Criteria.
20 • Under the new methodology, Fitch has identified four key rating factors that play a
21 significant role in driving the rating outcome for a given issuer in the context of its
22 economic base:
23 • The factors cover both the institutional framework in which an issuer operates, which
24 varies by level and location of government, and performance within that framework.
25 • Fitch publishes specific rating category evaluations for each factor, with analysis
26 focused on long-term trends and expectations.
27 • Key Ratings Factors - graph
28
29 Debt Policy Overview
30 County Policies- page 8
31 • The County Board adopted a series of financial policy guidelines on April 5, 2011,
32 including:
33 — A Cash Management and Investment Policy.
34 — A General Fund Balance Policy:
35 o The County will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance in the
36 General Fund of 17% percent of budgeted general fund operating
37 expenditures each fiscal year. The amount of unassigned fund
38 balance maintained during each fiscal year should not fall below 8%
39 percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures, as
40 recommended by the North Carolina Local Government Commission.
41 — Tax Supported Debt Policies:
42 o The County will maintain its net bonded debt at a level not to exceed
43 3% percent of the assessed valuation of taxable property within the
44 County.
45 o The County will strive to maintain its annual debt service costs at a
46 level no greater than 15% percent of general fund revenues, including
47 installment purchase debt. This is a recommended "best practice"
48 from the Government Finance Officers Association.
49
50 Summary of Existing Financial Policies - graph - page 9
6
1
2 Existing Tax Supported Debt - graph - page 11
3
4 Tax Supported Debt Service - graph
5 Par Outstanding — Estimated as of 6/30/2016
6 Tax Supported Debt Service
7
8 Key Debt Ratio: Tax Supported Payout Ratio - page 12
9 • Rating Considerations:
10 — Moody's: Moody's rating criteria for General Obligation credits allows for a
11 scorecard adjustment if an issuer has unusually slow or rapid amortization of
12 debt principal.
13 — S&P: A payout ratio greater than 65% results in a one point positive
14 qualitative adjustment to the Debt & Contingent Liabilities section of S&P's
15 General Obligation rating methodology.
16 • Existing 10-year Payout Ratio
17 — FY 2017: 89.7%
18 • The 10-Year Payout Ratio measures the amount of principal to be retired in the next 10
19 years.
20 • This ratio is an important metric that indicates whether or not a locality is back-loading
21 its debt.
22 • The County does not have a Financial Policy setting a minimum 10-Year Payout Ratio.
23
24 Key Debt Ratio: Tax Supported Debt to Assessed Value
25 TS Debt to Assessed Value Peer Comparative (Lower is Better) - page 13
26 • Rating Considerations:
27 — Moody's: Criteria for General Obligation Credits defines categories of Debt to
28 Assessed Values as:
29 o Very Strong (Aaa): < 0.75%
30 o Strong (Aa): 0.75% - 1.75%
31 o Moderate (A): 1.75% -4.00%
32 o Weak—Very Poor (Baa and below): > 4.00%
33 — S&P: A positive qualitative adjustment is made to the Debt and Contingent
34 Liabilities score for a debt to market value ratio below 3.00%, while a
35 negative adjustment is made for a ratio above 10.00%.
36 • Existing Tax Supported Debt to Assessed Value
37 — FY 2017: 1.01%
38 • Assumed Future Growth Rates
39 — 2016 Assessed Value: $16,778,182,392
40 — 2017 Budgeted A.V.: $16,942,732,752
41 — 2018 & Beyond: 1.70%
42 • The County has a Financial Policy setting a maximum Tax Supported Debt to Assessed
43 Value of 3.0%.
44
45 Key Debt Ratio: Tax Supported Debt Service vs. Governmental Expenditures
46 TS Debt Service vs. Gov't Expenditures Peer Comparative (Lower is Better)
47 • Rating Considerations:
48 — Moody's: Moody's criteria allows for a scorecard adjustment if an issuer has
49 very high or low debt service relative to its budget Percent.
7
1 — S&P: The Debt and Contingent Liabilities section defines categories of Net
2 Direct Debt as a % of Total Governmental Funds Expenditures as follows:
3 o Very Strong: <8%
4 o Strong: 8% to 15%
5 o Adequate: 15% - 25%
6 o Weak: 25% - 35%
7 o Very Weak: > 35%
8 • Existing Tax Supported Debt Service vs. Governmental Expenditures
9 — FY 2017: 11.72%
10 • Assumed Future Growth Rates
11 — 2016 Adjusted Expenditures: $193,857,534
12 — 2017: 1.50%
13 — 2018 & Beyond: 1.70%
14 • The County does not have a Financial Policy setting a maximum Tax Supported Debt
15 Service to Governmental Expenditures. However, the County has a policy setting a
16 maximum Debt Service to General Fund Revenues of 15.0%.
17
18 Key Debt Ratio: Tax Supported Debt Service vs. General Fund Revenues
19 Tax Supported Debt Service vs. General Fund Revenues
20 • Existing Tax Supported Debt Service vs. General Fund Revenues
21 — FY 2017: 12.87%
22 • Assumed Future Growth Rates
1
23 — 2017 Original Budget : $203,116,868
z
24 — 2018 Estimate : $209,221,031
25 — 2019 & Beyond: 2.00%
26 • The County has a policy setting a maximum Tax Supported Debt Service to General
27 Fund Revenues of 15.0%.
28 Excludes Fund Balance appropriation of$12,726,944.
z
29 Per County Staff. Excludes Fund Balance appropriation of $7,976,633.
30 TS Debt Service vs. General Fund Revenues (Lower is Better)
31 • Note: Peer comparative is estimated based on data available through Moody's MFRA.
32
33 Debt Affordability Analysis - page 16 - graph
34 Existing Debt
35 • FY 2018 Value of a Penny: $1,781,692
36 • Assumed FY 2019 & Beyond Growth Rate: 1.70%
37
38 Debt Capacity and Debt Affordability Analysis
39 September 2015 Overview— Bond Referendum Discussion
40 Overview
41 September 2015 Summary of Cases 1 & 2
42 • On September 10, 2015, the County Board held a retreat to review potential General
43 Obligation Bond Referendum packages.
44 • During that meeting, Davenport presented a series of potential cases which included:
45 — Case 1: Existing County CIP Only
46 — Case 2: Existing County CIP and $125 of Referendum Projects
47 — Case 3: Existing County CIP and $130 of Referendum Projects
48 — Case 4: Existing County CIP and $135 of Referendum Projects
8
1 • At the October 7, 2015 County Board meeting, the Board voted to pursue a $125 million
2 Bond Referendum for:
3 — School Projects - $120 Million
4 — Affordable Housing Projects - $5 Million
5 • As part of the presentation on September 10, 2015, the CIP funding case that included
6 the $125 million referendum resulted in the following:
7 — A required tax equivalent increase of 4.92¢ in FY 2018 or a total of 7.47¢
8 between FY 2018 and 2022.
9 — While the County was projected to be in compliance in all cases with its Debt
10 Service to Assessed Value policy, the General Fund Debt Service to General
11 Fund Revenues exceeds the policy in FY 2020 and 2022.
12
13 September 2015, Recommended 2017, and 2017 CIP Alternative#1
14 Difference in Debt Funded Projects
15 Overview
16 • The County adopts a 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan on an annual basis as part of its
17 budget process.
18 — The County identifies funding sources for each of the projects.
19 — Proposed capital projects are reviewed and adjusted as necessary each
20 year.
21 • Since September 2015, the County has adopted the FY 2016-2017 CIP and is currently
22 in the process of reviewing the FY 2017-2018 CIP.
23 • As part of the adoption and development of these CIPs, a number of items have
24 changed and evolved since September 2015.
25 • In addition to adjustments made to the projects included in the CIP, a number of
26 assumptions have been adjusted in the debt funding model, including items such as:
27 — Project amounts and timing to match the CIP, including one additional year of
28 CIP projects.
29 — The addition of short-term financings for software, equipment, and similar
30 projects.
31 — Updated budget assumptions and growth rates for key drivers, including:
32 o General Fund Revenues.
33 o Assessed Value.
34 o Value of a Penny.
35 — In analyses where an upfront tax increase is calculated, the year of the tax
36 increase was shifted from FY 2018 to FY 2019.
37 • The following pages contain a summary of the debt issuance included in the current
38 draft CIP and the associated impacts.
39
40 Capital Improvement Plan — Case Overview- page 20
41 • As part of the annual CIP process, the County identifies Capital Projects for potential
42 debt funding. The CIP includes Installment Purchase Contracts / Limited Obligation
43 Bonds as well as General Obligation Bonds approved during the November 2016
44 Referendum.
45 • Future debt is assumed to be funded under the following assumptions:
46 — Issuance Date: Fiscal Year indicated in the CIP (mid-year)
47 — First Payment: Fiscal Year following issuance
48 — Short-Term Borrowings: 5 Year Term at 2.25% - 3.00%
49 — Medium-Term Borrowings: 15 Year Term at 3.25%
50 — Long-Term Borrowings: 20 Year Term at 4.00% -4.50%
9
1 • Key Debt Ratio Growth Assumptions:
2 — Assessed Value — Natural Growth: 2018 & Beyond: 1.70%
3 — General Fund Revenues — Natural Growth: 2018 & Beyond: 2.00% plus
4 revenue derived from projected tax increases identified in the capital funding
5 plan (note: revenues include sales tax).
6
7 2017 CIP Alternative#1 — Future Debt Financings- graph- page 21
8
9 Summary of Results —2017 CIP Alternative #1- page 22
10
11 Debt Affordability Analysis
12
13 2017 CIP Alternative#1 Debt— No Tax Adjustment- page 23
14 • FY 2018 Value of a Penny: $1,781,692
15 • Assumed FY 2019 & Beyond Growth Rate: 1.70%
16 • Note: Without a tax increase, the County is forecasted to have shortfalls from FY 2019
17 to 2027 totaling $74,426,098.
18
19 Commissioner Jacobs said another bond, of comparable size, will be needed in the
20 future, and asked if there is a timeline on this.
21 Ted Cole said there are needs going forward, and the current CIP is being worked with.
22 He said it is not demonstrated well on this page, but if the County moved forward with an
23 upfront adjustment of 5.5 pennies, the County would have new dollars available for debt service
24 in FY 2025. He said this particular CIP goes to FY 2022, and dollars are available beyond what
25 is needed for this CIP beginning in FY 2025. He said the County could do a borrowing in 2024,
26 and the new debt service would start in 2025. He said there is a little bit of a gap between 2022
27 and 2024, but that is likely the next CIP horizon, and there will be some debt affordability. He
28 said this debt affordability has yet to be measured, but it is a continuation of this whole process.
29 He said he could measure "x" million in 2024, 2025, 2026, etc. He said a GO bond
30 authorization is good for a 7-year period, and it is fairly straightforward to get it extended to 10
31 years. He said this debt should be fully issued by FY 2022, which is on a somewhat aggressive
32 schedule, and there may be a couple of years that they could stretch GO authorization out to
33 2024.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said when the Board passed a bond in 2016, he doubted that the
35 public realized that other comparable projects would not be able to be accomplished until 2029.
36 He said he does not think projects were prioritized with this in mind.
37 Commissioner McKee asked if the possibility of pushing out anything would depend on
38 when the projects were built.
39 Ted Cole said it would be striking a balance between wanting projects sooner and the
40 projects being too costly until a later date. He said the luxury of pushing out the debt issuance
41 may not be possible.
42 Commissioner McKee said a lot of these projects are very big and would eat up most of
43 the issuance debt. He said the County will be obligated to go at a faster rate, rather than
44 further out.
45 Ted Cole said for this very reason, the County may find that general fund revenues are
46 growing more quickly, and the future policy issue may work itself out because the revenue
47 component is higher than projected.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said this has conceptual implications on how the County deals
49 with large CIP projects going forward. He said even two bonds will not cover all the many
50 issues in the schools: health, safety, capacity, modernization, etc. He said this presentation
10
1 grounds the discussion, and there needs to be a short hand way to articulate this to the school
2 boards and the public, as to what the County will be able to afford. He said the County needs
3 to revisit its priorities each time it considers taking on new debt.
4
5 Summary of Results —
6 2017 CIP Alternative#1 with Structured Principal
7 Observations / Items for Discussion
8 • Orange County has formalized a series of Financial Policy Guidelines and has a formal
9 CIP process in place.
10 • Orange County has historically managed its debt in a conservative fashion, as
11 evidenced by a strong 10-year Payout Ratio.
12 — Note: This conservative debt structure contributes to a higher Debt Service to
13 Budget Ratio.
14 • Based on a series of conservative CIP projections / assumptions, the 2017 CIP
15 Alternative#1 results in a projected cash flow shortfall (after the FY 2018 borrowing)
16 and the County is projected to exceed its Debt Service to General Fund Revenues
17 Policy (after the FY 2020 borrowing).
18 • The County has a number of options to consider as it relates to exceeding its policy
19 and/or addressing cash flow shortfalls:
20 — Consider delaying projects until they can be funded within the confines of the
21 adopted policies.
22 — Consider requesting alternative debt structuring flexibility from the LGC in
23 order to fund the currently scheduled CIP projects within current policy limits
24 and/or reduce cash flow shortfalls.
25 — Implement tax rate adjustments to minimize / eliminate cash flow shortfalls.
26 — Consider amendments to County policies:
27 o Change Policy Targets or Ratios.
28 o Add provisions that allow for policy exceptions subject to Board
29 review/ approval.
30 Potential Next Steps
31 • County Board reviews the current draft of the CIP and projected results.
32 • County Board provides guidance on preferred option or options for addressing cash flow
33 shortfalls and policy non-compliance.
34 • Davenport and County staff develop potential alternative scenarios and present a series
35 of options for the Board's consideration and feedback.
36 • Final CIP developed and adopted by the County Board.
37
38 Appendix
39 Details of Principal Structuring Cases
40 Principal Structuring
41
42 Chair Dorosin referred to page 24, and said the incremental option jumps all over the
43 place. He asked if these numbers are based on the amount of projects happening in any given
44 year.
45 Ted Cole said these numbers are driven by the amount of debt they are issuing.
46 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
47
48 Capital Investment Plan Prioritization
49 Board of Orange County Commissioners
50 May 9, 2017
11
1
2 Total Appropriations —Alternative 1 (graph)
3 • County capital projects reduced by approximately $22.4 million in years 1 through 5
4 • No changes to school capital or Durham Tech facility expansion
5
6 Projects and Facilities (graph)
7
8 Commissioner McKee asked if the jail project is currently on hold.
9 Travis Myren said he spoke with the Sheriff today about doing the project on the current
10 site, which the Sheriff supports. He said the architects will be redirected to start looking at this
11 site, and there will be some preliminary conversations with Hillsborough about its requirements
12 to complete such a project. He said this decision has not been completely made, but the
13 current site is being studied much more closely.
14 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
15
16 Parking Lot Improvements
17 • AMS North moved from year 5 to years 6 to 10 ($1.6 million)
18 • Efland Cheeks Community Center parking lot ($300,000) removed - included in
19 Community Center project in Year 3
20 Southern Orange Campus
21 • $3.6 million in Medicaid revenue applied to the Public Health portion of the project
22 (medical and dental)
23 • $1.56 million debt financed for remaining portions of the building
24
25 Technology and Communication
26 Fiber Connectivity
27 •Moved $1.05 million from FY2018-19 and FY19-20 to years 6 to 10 —completes
28 Hillsborough project; delays full north/south fiber run (Chapel Hill to Cedar Grove)
29 and east/west fiber run (Buckhorn to Eno EDD)
30 ITGC Projects
31 •Removed $500,000 in years 2 and 4 due to project backlog
32 EMS Substations
33 •Retained two highest priority stations in Waterstone and Efland; others deferred pending
34 location study and co-location partners
35
36 Commissioner Price said she hoped that the EMS stations would be a priority going
37 forward.
38 Travis Myren resumed the presentation:
39
40 Radio System
41 •Removed $1.4 million from year 1 for engineering by funding with prior year
42 appropriation
43 Register of Deeds Automation
44 •Removed $400,000 by applying existing funding
45
46 Chair Dorosin said the Board did not vote on this project yet.
47 Travis Myren said no, it did not.
48 Chair Dorosin asked if any funds would be spent in year 1.
49 Travis Myren said yes, there are funds allocated for engineering, but these funds would
50 come from a previous year.
12
1 Chair Dorosin asked if the Board does not approve this $28 million plan, would those
2 funds be wasted.
3 Travis Myren said the engineer needs direction as to what the County wants him to build
4 and the design, prior to an engineering contract being brought to the Board.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he had questions about allocating $21 million for a Durham
6 Tech building, and before the Board accepts this as the landscape, he would want more
7 information. He said half of the funding for Durham Tech's current building was paid for with
8 state funds. He said there is no assurance of state funds being provided again. He said he
9 does not like the assumption that Orange County will pay for this new building, and would like
10 more information.
11 Travis Myren said staff will gather more information. He resumed the presentation:
12
13 Parks and Open Space
14 Blackwood Farm Park
15 • Delays Park Operations Center ($2.5 million including design and equipment) to
16 years 6 to 10 as alternatives are evaluated
17 Millhouse Road Park
18 • Delays park planning and development for two years
19 Northeast District Park
20 • Delays park planning and development for two years
21
22 Funding Sources
23 • Transition from pay as you go to debt financing for school capital
24 • Register of Deeds revenue corrected
25 • Medicaid funds recognized for Public Health portion of Southern Campus Facility
26 Improvement
27
28 Debt Financing
29 • Debt financing for County Capital in years one through five reduced by $22.4 million
30 as a result of project reorganizations
31 • Transition from pay-as-you-go financing to debt financing for school capital
32
33 Recommended CIP and Alternative 1 (graph)
34
35 Debt Service Capacity Benchmark (graph)
36
37 Commissioner Burroughs referred to Millhouse Park and asked if Chapel Hill is in a
38 hurry to move this along.
39 Bonnie Hammersley said there have been conversations with the Town of Chapel Hill
40 for the past two years, but she will defer this question to Commissioner Jacobs.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said Mayor Hemminger is very interested in this park, and she
42 has talked to soccer leagues about putting money in up front. He said she is very interested in
43 talking to Orange County about options.
44 Commissioner Rich asked if Chapel Hill has asked Orange County to put money into the
45 Legion Road property.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said no, she has not had any conversations about this property.
47 Commissioner Rich said the Board received an email today from the Carrboro Mayor
48 noting the addition of $10 million to the Carrboro budget for the Southern Branch Library. She
49 asked if this affects the County's budget for this item.
13
1 Bonnie Hammersley said she and David Andrews, Carrboro Town Manager, are working
2 on a development agreement, and she said if it is not completed prior to the summer break, it
3 will be brought to the Boards in the fall. She said the CIP would mirror the Town of Carrboro's.
4 She said the County still has some planning money, but the Southern Branch Library
5 construction money is in year 2. She said the Town Manager agreed this plan is reflective of
6 both governing boards' budgets.
7 Commissioner Rich said when residents see this item in year 2 and 3, it is assumed that
8 the Town and the County are not working it currently, but that is not the case. She said
9 conversations are continuing, and the Town and the County are working together.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has never
11 voted on the amount of money that continues to be listed for this project in the CIP. He said
12 this amount goes back to the original idea of a 20,000 square foot urban library.
13 Bonnie Hammersley said this amount has been revised since she has been the County
14 Manager, and the size is about 12,000 square feet. She said staff will look at the details more
15 closely. She said she spoke with the Carrboro Town Manager and she asked that Carrboro
16 hold the contract for construction, because Carrboro owns the property, and the County will pay
17 the Town.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board has not discussed co-locating in a building with
19 the Town of Carrboro, and he said a lot of the public dialogue involved a desire for public
20 meeting space. He said if the Town is in the building, there would be a necessity of square
21 footage, but not if Carrboro is building its own building.
22 Commissioner McKee clarified with Commissioner Rich that Carrboro intends to budget
23 $10 million for this project.
24 Commissioner Rich said it was an email from the Carrboro Mayor sent to Chair/VC only,
25 and Carrboro has $10 million in its budget for a new library.
26 Commissioner McKee asked if this amount aligns with the $6 million in the County
27 budget.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said the agreement is being developed, and more details will be
29 defined as discussions continue. She said no party has agreed to a development agreement at
30 this time. She said she has budgeted an estimate, and whoever holds the contract will need to
31 have the full amount budgeted and receive offsetting revenue from the other party. She said
32 Carrboro is amending its CIP to add this item.
33 Commissioner McKee said this issue needs to be highlighted for more discussion.
34 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there was a purpose to the email from the Carrboro
35 Mayor.
36 Commissioner Rich said the email was to advise the Board that the conversation is
37 continuing within Carrboro, and that there are residents that have been waiting for a long time.
38 She said she brought it up this evening to assure the public that the BOCC and the two
39 Managers are talking about the issue.
40 Chair Dorosin said the BOCC ought to be looking at the CIP to further reduce costs. He
41 said there are several small ticket items that may not make an overall difference if removed. He
42 echoed Commissioner Jacobs about the Durham Tech project, and said it does need more
43 clarification.
44 Chair Dorosin said the Environment and Agriculture Center (EAC) is $3.4 million in year
45 1, and he recollected that the BOCC was going to get more information about options. He said
46 moving this project, or part of it, by one year may make a big difference.
47 Chair Dorosin said he would suggest further discussion about the fiber connectivity,
48 totaling $1.1 million in year one. He asked if it is critical to do in year 1.
49 Travis Myren said this project is with the Town of Hillsborough to connect County and
50 Town facilities with publicly owned fiber, as opposed to paying Time Warner for these
14
1 connections. He said the Town is ready to move on this item next year, and staff could talk to
2 the Town about deferring it for a year.
3 Chair Dorosin said he would like to know the significance of that possible delay.
4 Chair Dorosin referred to "Parks and Open Spaces", and said there is a $1 million for
5 conservation easements in years 2 and 4, and he said there is still money in Lands Legacy
6 program. He asked if the distinction between these two funding sources could be identified.
7 He also asked if one of these projects was moved back a year, and another project arose in the
8 interim, would there be other funding sources that could cover the conservation easements.
9 David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
10 Director, said previously the conservation easement fund was an annual appropriation of
11 $500,000. He said conservation easements tend to take a while, so the CIP was shifted to an
12 every other year approach. He said there are existing funds in the Lands Legacy fund, but
13 there are also a few outstanding projects that will be coming up shortly. He said the
14 conservation easement fund was set aside in 2002 to fund things that the 2001 bond money
15 could not fund. He said the conservation easement fund is down to about $100,000 currently,
16 and is one that could have a lot of projects outstanding.
17 Chair Dorosin asked if David Stancil's recommendation is to leave as is, or is there room
18 for flexibility.
19 David Stancil said next year the conservation easement fund will not have any extra
20 funds, and Lands Legacy funds would be used if need be. He said this will cover any shortfalls
21 until year 2, when the conservation easement fund is replenished. He said he would leave this
22 the way it is. He said the Lands Legacy fund will not be replenished for another two years, so
23 next year includes no new funds for conservation projects.
24 Chair Dorosin asked if the total in the Lands Legacy fund could be identified.
25 David Stancil said it is about $3 million, and $101,000 in the conservation easement
26 fund.
27 Commissioner Rich said she believed the County fiber project to be important and would
28 not want to push it off. She said the County is behind on this issue, and it is time to be
29 independent of Time Warner. She said she hopes this will make it easier to get service to rural
30 areas.
31 Chair Dorosin said he is not suggesting removing any items, but just delaying them by a
32 year.
33 Commissioner Price said the BOCC should move forward with the fiber project.
34 Commissioner Burroughs said the times in which they are going over the 15% are in the
35 out years, and asked if it is possible that delaying things in the first year or two may not help at
36 all.
37 Travis Myren said staff focused on years in which they would be over the policy, or
38 those with the highest affordability issues, which were FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22. He said
39 borrowing that would occur in FY 2019-20 would start affecting the FY 2020-21 debt service
40 payments.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed that the BOCC needs more clarity on the EAC
42 project. He said it might be useful to differentiate the few projects that have a financial return or
43 savings.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said this is an ambitious CIP that still fits into the County's debt
45 policy, which he finds to be impressive.
46 Commissioner Rich asked if Hillsborough's percentage of the fiber costs could be
47 identified. She said there may be other partners willing to join in on this project.
48 Commissioner Rich said she would also like further information about affordable
49 housing options at the EAC.
15
1 Chair Dorosin asked if staff would highlight those projects that generate revenue, as well
2 as those done in partnership with the other municipalities.
3
4 2. Financial Policies Discussion
5 (General Fund Balance and Debt Management)
6 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the following background information:
7
8 BACKGROUND:
9 On April 5, 2011 the BOCC adopted a series of financial policies including:
10 General Fund Balance Policy:
11 • The County will strive to maintain an unassigned fund balance in the General Fund of
12 17% percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures each fiscal year. The
13 amount of unassigned fund balance maintained during each fiscal year should not fall
14 below 8% percent of budgeted general fund operating expenditures, as recommended
15 by the North Carolina Local Government Commission.
16 Debt Management Policies:
17 • The County will maintain its net bonded debt at a level not to exceed 3% of the
18 assessed valuation of taxable property within the County.
19 • The County will strive to maintain its annual debt service costs at a level no greater than
20 15% of general fund revenues, including installment purchase debt. This is a
21 recommended "best practice"from the Government Finance Officers Association.
22
23 It is a recommended practice to provide regular updates to the BOCC regarding the County's
24 Financial Policies as a means to communicate the County's financial status.
25 Gary Donaldson made the following PowerPoint presentation:
26
27 Financial Policies Update
28 Work Session Presentation to the
29 Orange County Board of County Commissioners
30 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer
31 May 9, 2017
32
33 Key County Financial Policies
34 • April 2011 BOCC Adopted Financial Policies:
35 — Debt Management Policies for 1) Debt Service to Revenues (15% metric) and
36 Debt to Assessed Value (3% metric)
37 — Fund Balance Policy for Unassigned Fund Balance (17% metric)
38
39 Debt to Assessed Value Ratio
40
16
Fiscal Year Total Debt Total Assessed Value Debt to AV Ratio
2007 $ 221,943,769 12,330,315,189 1.80%
2008 216,588,249 12,581,220,279 1.72%
2009 233,904,488 12,820,237,558 1.82%
2010 222,843,717 15,538,736,056 1.43%
2011 214,713,340 15,689,990,180 1.37%
2012 225,599,381 15,899,136,125 1.42%
2013 210,585,038 16,075,973,471 1.31%
2014 214,322,108 16,632,360,368 1.29%
2015 207,784,411 16,501,943,134 1.26%
2016 190,805,417 16,778,182,392 1.14%
1 Note:Total Debt includes all County Debt including Enterprise Fund debt.
2
3 Best Practices for Unassiqned General Fund Balance
4 ➢ The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of U.S. and Canada:
5 • Updated the Best Practice on unassigned general fund balances in 200
6 • At a minimum an unassigned general fund balance of no less than 2 months of
7 regular general fund operating revenues or operating expenditures
8 • Equates to 16.7% of either general fund operating revenues or operating
9 expenditures
10
11 Appropriate Use of Unassiqned Fund Balance
12 ➢ The essential uses of General Fund reserves:
13 • Mitigate risk attributed to revenue shortfalls or unanticipated non-recurring
14 expenditures
15 • Provide a financial bridge during recessions or weak economic conditions
16 • Use for natural disasters and emergencies
17 • Cash Balance cushion
18
19 Audited Unassiqned Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures—General Fund (qraph)
20
21 Unassiqned Fund Balance as % of Expenditures
17
For Fiscal Year Ended June 30
General Fund 2017 Estimate 2016 2015 2014 2013
Non-spendable $ 16,676 $ 16,669 $ 20,306 $ 29,242 $ 39,954
Restricted 12,167,129 12,144,573 12,255,821 12,102,492 9,736,214
Committed 7,793,841 7,543,841 7,543,841 6,001,641 3,105,267
Assigned (1) 7,807,696 12,726,944 10,650,770 10,068,343 5,190,118
Unassigned (2) 35,290,621 32,034,160 35,548,843 33,913,229 36,608,054
Total Fund Balance 63,075,963 64,466,187 66,019,581 62,114,947 54,679,607
Total Expenditures 206,417,275 198,116,335 192,078,545 179,185,168 170,330,053
Assigned as %of Expenditures 3.8% 6.4% 5.5% 5.6% 3.0%
Unassigned as %of Expenditures 17% 16.2% 18.5% 18.9% 21.5%
Notes:
1) Assigned represents that portion of fund balance that is appropriated to fund the General Fund Budget
2) Unassigned represents that portion of fund balance that is reserved to meet the Board's 17%policy.
1
2 General Fund Cash Flow Position (graph)
3
4 The Ten `AAA' Rated Counties of North Carolina (graph)
5
6 S&P Scorecard
7
PPM RINPVT)))14);))) LEM)2)Institutional Framework �1d%
Uniform score for all of the same type of
governments in same state
Economy 30%
Total Market Value Per Capita and Projected
Per Capita Effective Buying Income as a %0 of US
Projected Per Capita EBI
Management 20%
Issuer's Financial Management Assessment
Score considered with other certain qualitative
factors
Financial Measures 30%
Liquidity (1O%)- Total Government Available
Cash as %a of Total Governmental Funds Debt
Service and % of Total Governmental Funds
Expenditures
Budgetary Performance (10%)- Total
Governmental Funds Net Result (%) and
General Fund Net Results (%)
Budgetary Flexibility (10%)- Available Fund
Balance as a % of Expenditures
Debt and Contingent Liabilities 10%
8 Net Direct Debt as % of Total Governmental
18
1
2 Moody's Scorecard
Jiir J ra l��r rr r,1 i liii �� 1� rr r� �i
f� JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ� uw,111�,�,J/ V�,I I f1,.
J1,111
�i"mm.�l � W«' A
Economy/Tax Base 30%
Tax Base Size (full value) 10%
Full Value per Capita 10%
Wealth (median family income) 10%
Finances 30%
Fund Balance (% of Revenues) 10%
Fund Balance Trend (5-Yr Change) 5%
Cash Balance (%of Revenues) 10%
Cash Balance Trend (5-Yr Change) 5%
Management 20%
Institutional Framework 10%
Operating History 10%
Debt/Pensions 20%
Debt to Full Value 5%
Debt to Revenue 5%
Moody's adjusted Net Pension. Liability 5%
(3-Yr average) to Full Value
Moody's adjusted Net Pension Liability 5%
3 (3-Yr average) to Revenue
4
5 Best Practice Unassigned Fund Balance
6 ➢ In Summary
7 • GFOA Recommends Unassigned Fund Balance at 2 Months of Expenditures or
8 16.7%
9 • North Carolina AAA Rated County Peers Maintain at Least 2 Months; one
10 exception
11 • Strong Fund Balance provides Financial Bridge in Recession and Emergencies
12
13 Questions
14
15 Bonnie Hammersley said she put this item on the agenda because the audit had not
16 been completed the last time this topic was discussed. She said this was the first available time
17 to add it to an agenda, since the completion of the audit. She said this is the Board of County
18 Commissioners' policy and should be defined as such.
19 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the fund balance was dipped into during the
20 recession.
19
1 Bonnie Hammersley said she was not in Orange County at that time, but there was
2 minimal use of the fund balance prior to 2013-2014. She said $5 million was put into the
3 budget in FY 2013-14 as a source of on going expenditures, and the same for 2015.
4 Bonnie Hammersley said the County and schools operating expenses are starting to eat
5 away at the fund balance.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC set the 17% fund balance during FY 2013-14, as
7 a way to improve the County's fiscal standing.
8 Chair Dorosin said the Board discussed this, and he thought the Board voted to change
9 the 17% policy, but it looks like the Board only agreed to just dip into the balance.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said the BOCC agreed to take money out of the fund balance, but
11 the impact was unknown at the time. She said the BOCC did have a more comprehensive
12 discussion about changing the policy, but there was also discussion about the audit not yet
13 being completed at the time.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said she had a similar recollection, and she thought the
15 BOCC had agreed to go to 16% last fall. She said she would be willing to consider going to
16 16% as the County fund balance policy.
17 Chair Dorosin said he would support lowering the fund balance to 16%, and said the
18 Board should make a policy decision. He said he would like the Board to vote on it formally,
19 one way or the other. He said he would be willing to do that this evening, or wait a bit if other
20 Commissioners would like any additional information.
21 Commissioner Rich recalled the discussion being between 16.5% and 16%.
22 Chair Dorosin said it is not important to remember the previous discussion, because
23 there was no vote. He said the conversation can happen now.
24 Commissioner Jacobs suggested asking the bond counsel about this topic.
25 Bob Jessup said he would defer the question to Ted Cole, but there is not a bond risk
26 within his scope.
27 Ted Cole said if there is a near-term need for these funds, it would be preferable to use
28 the reserves for a one-time event as opposed to just lowering the policy permanently. He said
29 the bond agencies may ask at some point why the Board chose to permanently lower the fund
30 balance.
31 Ted Cole said rating agencies may or may not pick up on a permanent change, but if
32 they do, they will ask why the change occurred. He said no one ratio is going to drive a rating,
33 but picking away at areas of strength will eventually have an impact. He asked if there a specific
34 reason behind lowering the percentage to 16%.
35 Commissioner Marcoplos said he sees this money as a safeguard, and he does not see
36 it as a risk to go to 16%. He said having the money available now, and using it in current
37 dollars, is an investment that will save money.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said a 5.5-cent property tax increase is expected next year, and if
39 the reason for lowering the percentage is to give more to schools, then it will not be available to
40 offset the tax increase next year. He said he would rather plan for the inevitable 5.5-cent
41 property tax increase, and leave funds in the balance for one more year and then lower it next
42 year, to offset property tax increases in FY 2018-19.
43 Commissioner McKee said he would like to stay in a comfortable range, which is 17%
44 for him. He said he is not opposed to lowering it, but Commissioner Jacobs makes a good
45 point. He said there will be a demand for extra money, but "you can only sell the cows one
46 time," and the 1% can only be taken out once.
47 Commissioner McKee said his main concern about this discussion is not the actual
48 percentage, but rather the trend of the fund balance going down over the years. He said the
49 Board needs to be cognizant of this conversation, and it cannot continue to reduce the
50 percentage of the fund balance every year. He said this is a policy change, and asked if this
20
1 vote could be deferred to a regular meeting agenda, so that the public can be notified and
2 heard.
3 Commissioner Burroughs agreed that this discussion and vote should be on a regular
4 meeting agenda.
5 Discussion ensued.
6
7 Chair Dorosin said he believed 17% is too conservative. He said historically, after the
8 budget is approved, the Manager comes back with an extra $1 million, and this money is used
9 outside of the budget process, which he finds to be less transparent. He said he appreciates
10 Commissioner McKee's point about the trend, but it does not trouble him because 16% is still a
11 conservative percentage. He said he is not earmarking the reduction in the fund for the
12 schools, and he agreed the Board should vote on the policy at a regular meeting.
13 Bonnie Hammersley said she thought staff would get guidance this evening and keep
14 the outside agencies at 1.2%. She said this will come back for a formal vote, and she will honor
15 the reserve, whatever it is.
16 Commissioner Burroughs said she would support lowering the percentage to 16% this
17 year.
18 Commissioner Price said the County will not be at risk, as long as two months worth of
19 funding is in the bank.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not opposed to going lower, but would suggest doing it
21 with strategic timing.
22 Commissioner Rich said she thought the BOCC already voted on this, and asked if the
23 Clerk would look at the minutes. She said she is happy to go to 16%.
24 Chair Dorosin asked the Manager if she would put this item on a regular agenda, and
25 bring back information on both 16% and 16.5% options, and what budget recommendations
26 she would make for the extra funds.
27
28 3. Closed Session
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
31 go into closed session at 9:51 p.m. for the purpose below:
32
33 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
34 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board to receive updates
35 on Orange County, et al v. Slack and Southeast Property Group v. Orange County and to
36 approve general accounts of closed sessions."
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSSION
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
43 reconvene into regular session at 10:30 p.m.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 ADJOURNMENT
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
50 adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
21
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 Mark Dorosin, Chair
5
6 Donna Baker
7 Clerk to the Board
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
1 Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING
6 May 11, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May 11,
10 2017 at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos and Renee Price
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Penny Rich
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
18 identified appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
21
22 1. Opening Remarks
23
24 PUBLIC CHARGE
25 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
26
27 2. Presentation of County Manager's Recommended FY 2017-18 Budget
28 Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation:
29
30 FY2017-18
31 COUNTY MANAGER
32 RECOMMENDED BUDGET
33
34 FY17-18 Recommended Budget
35 • Expenditures — Revenues -Tax Rate
36 • Assumptions
37 • Initiatives
38 • School Funding
39 • Outside Agencies
40 • Fire Districts
41
42 2017 Tax Year Revaluation
43 ✓ The revaluation resulted in a 6.5% increase in real property value, increasing the
44 property tax base by over$1 billion to $16.8 billion.
45 ✓ Since the County's overall tax base increased, the County's revenue neutral rate
46 decreases from 87.80 cents per$100 of value to 83.77 cents per$100 of value.
47
48 Budgeted Expenditures and Revenues (graph)
49
50 Budget Assumptions
2
1 ✓ Revenue Neutral Rate = .8377
2 ✓ Tax Growth* = 1.2%
3 ✓ Sales Tax Growth = 4%
4 ✓ General Fund Reserve = 17%
5
6 Budget Request Complication (chart)
7
8 Initiatives
9 ✓ Increase funding Orange Connect Scholarship Program
10 ✓ Increase per pupil funding for CHCCS and OCS
11 ✓ Compensation package for County employees
12 ✓ Paid Parental Leave for County Employees
13 ✓ Increase funding for Orange Public Transit
14 ✓ Implement collaborative initiative for Housing Rehab
15 ✓ Planning funds for Economic Summit and a Local Festival
16 ✓ Advance the Criminal Justice Resource Office to County Department status
17
18 Education (chart)
19
20 Education: Recommended School Funding (chart)
21
22 Education: Durham Technical Community College (chart)
23
24 Functional Leadership Teams
25 o Community Services
26 ✓ Additional Positions — 11 FTE (Fees/Article 43/Program Revenue
27 ✓ Community Centers agreements with Neighborhood Associations.
28 ✓ Increase Solid Waste Program Fee $21 to $128 per year
29 ✓ Implement a Mattress Collection Program
30 o General Government
31 ✓ Board of Elections will conduct three (3) elections
32 o Human Services
33 ✓ Additional Positions — 7.0 FTE (2nd Family Foundation/State/GF)
34 ✓ Behavioral Health Assessment Study
35 ✓ Family Success Alliance (FSA)
36 o Public Safety
37 ✓ Additional Positions— 2.5 FTE (ABC /MOE)
38 o Support Services
39 ✓ Website Redesign will improve operation
40
41 Orange County Employee Compensation (chart)
42
43 Outside Agencies (chart)
44
45 Outside Agencies (chart)
46 Fire District (chart)
47
48 FY2017-22 Capital Investment Plan
49 FY2017-18
50 ➢ Detention Facility— $622,114
51 ➢ Environment & Ag Center—$3.4 million
3
1 ➢ Solid Waste —$990,268
2 ➢ Sportsplex— $465,000
3 ➢ Community Centers —$75,000
4 ➢ Economic Development—$2.3 million
5 ➢ EMS Substation Co-location — $845,000
6 ➢ Facility Accessibility & Security— $30,000
7 ➢ Rural Broadband —$500,000
8 ➢ School Capital Improvements —$7.8 million
9 ➢ Blackwood Farm Park—$100,000
10 ➢ Fairview Park—$50,000
11 ➢ Hollow Rock Nature Park—$10,000
12 ➢ Park Renovation & Repairs — $191,000
13 ➢ Soccer Center Phase II — $300,000
14 ➢ BOCC Initiatives - $50,000
15 ➢ Fiber Connections — $1.2M
16 ➢ Infrastructure—$700,000
17 ➢ ITGC Initiatives —$510,000
18 ➢ Mobile Radios —$920,000
19 ➢ Facility Enhancements — $450,000
20 ➢ HVAC Projects —$122,000
21 ➢ SHSC Renovation— $4.0M
22 ➢ Roofing and Facade—$102,444
23
24 Budget Timeline Date
25 County Manager presents FY17-18 Recommended Budget May 29, 2017
26 Budget Public Hearings
27 Budget and Capital Investment Plan (CIP) May 11 and May 16
28 Budget Work Session Schedule
29 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Prioritization May 9
30 Schools and Outside Agencies May 25
31 Fire Districts, Public safety, Support Services and Gen. Gov. June 8
32 Human Services and Community Services June 13
33 Budget Amendments and Resolution of Intent to Adopt June 15
34 BOCC Regular Meeting
35 FY2017-18 Operating and CIP Budget Adoption June 20
36
37 Budget Documentation Availability
38 ✓ Clerk to Board of Commissioners
39 ✓ County Finance & Administrative Services Office
40 ✓ Orange County Library
41 ✓ Chapel Hill Public Library
42 ✓ Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
43 ✓ Orange County Website - http://orangecountync.gov
44
45 Target of 1.2% for outside agencies.
46 A copy of the County Manager' Recommended FY 2017-18 Budget can be found at the
47 following website:
48 http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/county budgets.php
49
50 Chair Dorosin asked if the Board had any questions.
51 Chair Dorosin asked if the Manager could briefly describe the parental leave benefits.
4
1 Bonnie Hammersley said this benefit includes a 6-week paid leave for birth, adoption, or
2 guardianship of a child. She said this is both maternal and paternal leave. She said if the
3 Board accepts this provision, the benefit would go into effect on July 1, 2017. She said this
4 benefit is similar to a number of other municipalities in the Triangle Region.
5 Chair Dorosin referred to the ADM portion of Recommended Budget Education slide,
6 and asked if the "out of district number" referred to students who live in the Chapel Hill Carrboro
7 City Schools (CHCCS) district who attend other school districts, or vice versa.
8 Commissioner Burroughs said this number refers to the children of faculty and staff who
9 attend the district due to their parent being employed by the district.
10 Chair Dorosin asked if the number of charter school students refers to student who live
11 in the CHCCS district, but attend charter schools. He asked if the total number for CHCCS
12 (12,160) and Orange County Schools (8,072) represents the actual students attending the
13 schools.
14 Paul Laughton, Finance and Administrative Services, said the ADM is a planning
15 number that is given each year in March. He said this number comes from the State's
16 Department of Public Instruction. He said this number has been used consistently for many
17 years.
18 Chair Dorosin clarified that the total number does not include out of district students, as
19 those students pay to attend the schools.
20 Bonnie Hammersley said that is correct.
21 Chair Dorosin clarified that the charter school students are included, as the County does
22 pay for those students.
23 Commissioner Burroughs said yes.
24 Chair Dorosin referred to the General Government slide, where it says "the Board of
25 Elections will conduct three elections", and asked if the third election could be identified.
26 Paul Laughton said there is a scheduled run off, and all three elections are budgeted for.
27 Chair Dorosin referred to the Outside Agencies slide, and clarified that no outside
28 agency gets 100% of its requested funding.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said no agency gets 100% of its requested increase. She said
30 there are two outside agencies that did not request an increase, but rather the same funding as
31 previously received, of which each agency received 100%.
32 Chair Dorosin clarified that the Manager's recommendation for fire districts is to increase
33 the rate in all districts that have requested an increase.
34 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
35 Commissioner Price referred to the slide about the ADM, and the tuition paid by out of
36 district students. She asked if these monies appear in the County or the Schools' budgets.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said it does not go through the County budget. She said the
38 Schools collect the fees.
39
40 3. Public Comment
41 Susan Romaine said she is the Chair of the steering committee for the Orange County
42 Living Wage (OCLW). She said she is pleased to report that OCLW has used the Orange
43 County funding to grow its mission. She said OCLW has certified 118 living wage employers in
44 Orange County, who pay their employees at least $13.15 per hour. She said these businesses
45 employ over 7000 workers. She said OCLW organizes "buycots", supporting the patronage of
46 four living wage employers: Mystery Brewing, Gray Squirrel, Coastal Federal Credit Union, and
47 Rise Biscuits and Donuts. She reviewed other highlights of the past year. She thanked the
48 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)for its ongoing support.
49 Katie Bauman said she is the Director of Behavioral Insights. She said larger numbers
50 of children are exposed to domestic violence in Orange County, and it is important to work with
51 both the children and their parents. She said Behavioral Insights will be administering the
5
1 Strong Fathers Program, which is a strengths based intervention program for fathers
2 overcoming cycles of family violence. She said Behavioral Insights also provides partner abuse
3 intervention, anger management classes, and pretrial sentencing plans. She said these
4 programs equip participants with skills, and offer alternatives to jail time. She thanked the
5 BOCC for its support.
6 Elvira Mebane said she is the President of United Voices of Efland Cheeks, and thanked
7 the Manager and the BOCC for their support. She asked if recommended funds for part time
8 positions could be transferred to their personnel line items, so as to create a more effective and
9 efficient use of the funds. She thanked the Manager, and asked the BOCC to approve the
10 recommended budget.
11 Cordelia Heaney said she is the Executive Director of the Compass Center for Women
12 and Families, which empowers clients to navigate challenging times in their lives. She said the
13 Center promotes social justice and gender equity through a unique array of services:
14 workshops, teen pregnancy prevention education, community education, domestic violence
15 court advocacy, 24 hour domestic violence hot line, etc. She said the Center serves about 5000
16 people annually, and thanked the BOCC for its support. She reviewed several highlights of the
17 past year, and plans for the upcoming year. She said there is great need for the Center's
18 services, especially pertaining to domestic violence services.
19 Brenda McCall said she is a volunteer with Project Engage, which serves seniors and
20 those with disabilities. She said a huge need of this population is flexible, assisted, on-demand
21 transportation. She said medical services are increasingly de-centralized, making transportation
22 more difficult and outside of the regular Orange Public Transit (OPT) routes. She asked the
23 BOCC to please fund on demand transportation services.
24 Sophie Suberan thanked the BOCC for its efforts for the community. She said she is
25 here to speak about funds allotted for School Resource Officers. She encouraged the BOCC to
26 consider using these funds for restorative justice purposes, rather than School Resource
27 Officers. She said this would employ the same type of people, but shift the paradigm approach.
28 She said this line of thinking relates to House Bill 280, and could offer partnership opportunities
29 to bring the restorative justice process into the schools.
30 Chris Walker said he is a veteran teacher in OCS, and has four children who have
31 attended the schools. He thanked the BOCC for increasing the supplements this past year, and
32 asked that the full budget be approved. He said the financial changes made by the BOCC and
33 OCS last year allowed many people to reinvest and live in Orange County. He said he hopes
34 this will continue.
35 Laura Streifeld said she is the Executive Director of Preserve Rural Orange, and read
36 the following comments:
37 In considering the budget, Preserve Rural Orange requests County Community Relations,
38 Planning, IT and Legal Department resources dedicated to making public information more
39 available and accessible to citizens promptly and proactively, including the following:
40 1. Planning Department Postings of public documents regarding projects of
41 interest including communications and submissions from all County
42 departments, as they are written and submitted, searchable by key word and
43 date.
44 2. Audio recordings of Board of Adjustment meetings and hearings posted
45 online and publicly accessible immediately after each meeting.
46 3. Video recordings of each BOA meeting (as at BOCC meetings), with
47 searchable agendas.
48 4. BOA meetings to take place one month following a BOA meeting or
49 hearing, in order to improve minutes.
6
1 5. Recurring public informational meetings between County Planning staff,
2 elected officials and citizens to establish items of interest and exchange
3 updated information.
4
5 Amanda Elcholm said she is an Orange County resident, who lives within 500 feet of
6 The Barn of Chapel Hill. She said a permit was issued for this venue to hold twelve weddings,
7 and the surrounding residents were not able to provide input. She said the most recent wedding
8 prompted calls to the police due to the noise level. She requested that funds be allocated to
9 promote prompt and complete communication to residents, so that similar scenarios do not
10 arise.
11 Commissioner McKee said he thought there were audio recording of BOA meetings, and
12 asked if the Manager would follow up on this information.
13 Bonnie Hammersley said she would find out that information.
14 Commissioner Price asked if the Manager could clarify the funding requests made by
15 Elvira Mebane on behalf of the community centers.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said the Community Centers made these requests through the
17 outside agency process. She said funds have been allotted for temporary County employees to
18 work at the Community Centers. She said in her last conversation with Voices United, it was
19 proposed that the County provide the funds and let the Community Center hire its own
20 employee. She said this is a good proposal, and other community centers are being asked
21 about following suit. She said the Community Center Coordinator position was vacant, and in
22 seeking a replacement it was determined that it may be better to take the funds intended for the
23 one position, and divide it in thirds allowing each Center to hire its own employee. She said this
24 will come back as an amendment to the recommended budget
25 Commissioner Price said Chris Walker is the OCS teacher of the year.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the comments about school resource officers
27 (SROs), and said it would be helpful to know how much money was budgeted for SROs this
28 past year.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said she would get this information to the Board.
30
31 4. Adjournment
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
33 adjourn the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 Mark Dorosin, Chair
38
39 David Hunt
40 Deputy Clerk to the Board
41
42