Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-29-2004 Legislative breakfastORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PRINCIPAL TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT MARCH 29, 2004 LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST TOPICS (Listed Alphabetically) Alcohol Tax Bio- solids Disposal Cigarette Tax Dorothea Dix Property Disposition EFNEPBreast- feeding Program Judicial Activities Funding Local Option Tax Menu — Revenue Options (House Bill 664) Long -term Care Issues Mental Health Reform Mental Health System Reform - Transition Implementation Flexibility Mental Health Treatment Court Pilot Bill No Child Left Behind 1 PAGE NUMBER Orange Page 8, Item #29 & Page 16 Light Blue Pages 1 -25 Orange Page 9, Item #30 AND ITEM PAPER COLOR NUMBER ON DOCUMENT COLOR REFERENCE DOCUMENT Orange Page 1 Item #2 Lavender Page 1 Orange Page 1, Item #1 & Page 15 Rose Page 1 Goldenrod Page 1 Orange Page 11 Item # 40 Orange Page 2 Item #5 Orange Page 12 Items #43 -45 Orange Page 5 Item #15 Yellow Pages 1 -2 Orange Page 8, Item #29 & Page 16 Light Blue Pages 1 -25 Orange Page 9, Item #30 2 Open Burning Permits/High Ozone Alert Orange Page 10 Days Items #38 Reducing Class Size/Reducing School Orange Pages 7 -8 Capacity Items #26 & 27 Register of Deeds Cancellation Orange Page 11 Process/Fee Item# 41 Restaurant Inspection Fee Orange Page 11 Item #39 School Impact Tax on Land Light Green Pages 1 -4 Development Senate Bill 160/House Bill 1064 — Orange Page 10 Delegations of Authority Item #37 State Aid to Counties Orange Page 3 Item #11 State Responsibility — Residential Mental Orange Page 4 Health Services for Children Item #12 Unfunded Mandates Orange Page 9 Item #30 Waste Reduction/Recycling Orange Page 7 Items #23 -25 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PAPER COLOR LEGEND FOR MARCH 29, 2004 LEGISLATIVE BREAKFAST PAPER COLOR TOPICS PAGE NUMBER(S) Yellow Transition Flexibility in Implementing Pages 1 -2 Mental Health System Reform Light Blue No Child Left Behind Pages 1 -25 Light Green School Impact Tax on Land Pages 1 -4 Development Rose Dorothea Dix Resolution Page 1 Goldenrod EFNEP/Breast- feeding Program Page 1 Lavender Bio- solids Disposal Page 1 Orange "Adequate Shelter" Definition for Pages 13 & 22 Animals Advanced Electronics Recycling Fee Page 7 Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Page 9 System Changes Alcohol Tax Page 1 Annexation Page 10 Body Piercing Establishments Page 11 Inspections/Fees Bottle Deposit Legislation Page 7 Broaden Local Government Authority Page 10 Burning Permits on High Ozone Alert Page 10 Days Cigarette Tax Pages 1 & 15 Commissioner Approval of Utility Page 10 Power of Eminent Domain Criminal Justice Partnership Program Page 4 Funding Dispute Settlement Centers Funding Page 5 Guardianship Laws Study Commission Page 12 I -40 Billboard Moratorium Page 3 In -home Services to Seniors Page 5 Intensive Home Visiting Funding Page 5 2 Orange Judicial Activities Funding Page 11 (Continued) Local Government Reimbursements Page 2 Local Revenue Options Page 2 Long -term Care Employees Criminal Page 12 Record Check Medical Prescriptions Page 6 Mental Health Adequate Funding Page 5 Mental Health Treatment Court Pilot Pages 8 & 16 Bill "More at Four" Page 8 North Carolina Association of County Pages 13 & 23 -29 Commissioners Legislative Goals with Orange County Comments NCDOT Acceptance of Post -1975 Page 3 Recorded Subdivision Roads North Carolina Poison Control Center Page 6 Funding Public School Capital Building Fund Page 2 Private Sector Soil Evaluations Pages 9 & 17 -21 RPO — Increased Dedicated Funding Page 3 Reducing Class Size Page 7 Register of Deeds Cancellation Page 11 Process/Fee Restaurant Inspection Fees Page 11 School Utility Costs — State Funding Page 2 Smart Start Page 6 Soil and Water Conservation Personnel Page 10 Funding Special Care "Locked Units" Definition Page 12 State Aid to Counties Page 3 State Responsibility for Residential Page 4 Mental Health Treatment for Children Tax Loopholes Page 1 Transfers of Equipment from One Local Page 10 Government Unit to Another Unfunded Mandates Page 9 University of North Carolina Dental Page 6 Clinic Funding University of North Carolina Pharmacy Page 6 School Funding UNC School of Government Funding Page 8 White Goods Recycling Page 7 1 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY RESOLUTION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that the Board hereby requests the Senator and Representatives representing Orange County to introduce and support the following legislative matter: 1. AN ACT TO PROVIDE COUNTIES WITH TRANSITION FLEXIBILITY IN IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM REFORM, SESSION LAWS 2001 -437 (Exhibit A); Upon motion of Commissioner 00� seconded by Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted this the � 2004. w�day of �G�,�, I. Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 0V 16, 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this P,� day of 2004. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners 2 EXHIBIT A [Date] A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO PROVIDE COUNTIES WITH TRANSITION FLEXIBILITY IN IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM REFORM, SESSION LAWS 2001 -437. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. G.S. § 122C- 115(a) is amended to read as rewritten: (a) A county shall provide mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services through an area authority or through a county program established pursuant to G.S. 122C- 115.1. To the extent this section conflicts with G.S. 153A-77(a), the provisions. of G.S. 153A-77(a) control. If a county that is a member of an area authority determines to provide its services through a county program or through a multi- county program it may, for a reasonable period of time, simultaneously participate in a county program or a multi- county program while remaining a participating member of the area authority. SECTION 2. This act is effective upon ratification. 1sg:orangecounty \122C -115 amendment.doc 1 NORTH CAROLINA RESOLUTION REGARDING ORANGE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE MATTERS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that the Board hereby requests the Senator and Representatives representing Orange County to introduce and support the following legislative matter: 1. AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO LEVY A TAX ON THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING REVENUES TO PAY PART OF THE COSTS OF SCHOOL CAPITAL FACILITIES (Exhibit A) ; Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner 6Lk�4� , the foregoing resolution was /�- V1 - adopted this the day of 2004. I. Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of A.. U- 2004. Clerk to the Board of Commissioners I Exhibit A A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE ORANGE COUNTY TO LEVY A TAX ON THE IMPACT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING REVENUES TO PAY PART OF THE COSTS OF SCHOOL CAPITAL FACILITIES The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1. The following definitions apply to this act: (1) Commercial building enclosed floor space. All enclosed floor space used for any purpose except: a. dwelling units and accessory structures to dwelling units; b. recreational facilities constructed as part of a residential development and used primarily by residents of the development; C. buildings owned by the United States, the State of North Carolina, any county or any municipal corporation; d. buildings owned and operated by non - profit entities for noncommercial and nonresidential purposes; e. schools or day care centers. (2) Dwelling Unit. An enclosure containing sleeping, kitchen, and bathroom facilities designed for and used or held ready for use as a permanent residence by one family. (3) Land development. a. Land development shall mean: 1. construction of any dwelling unit, other than one excluded under subsection (b) of this Section, for which a building permit was issued or should have been issued after the effective date of an ordinance adopted under this act; 2. construction of any commercial building enclosed floor space for which a building permit was issued or should have been issued after the effective date of an ordinance adopted under this act; 3. conversion of a building that adds one or more new dwelling units or that creates new commercial building enclosed floor space; or 4. the initial location of a manufactured home or other dwelling or commercial structure within Orange County. b. For purposes of determining the impact of land development for this act, land development shall not include: 1. construction of an addition to a dwelling unit; 2. the relocation within Orange County of any structure located within the County on the effective date of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this act or any structure with respect to which an impact tax pursuant to this act has been paid; 3. within the County, the reconstruction or 9 replacement of one dwelling unit by another or the replacement or reconstruction of commercial building enclosed floor space that was in existence on the effective date of an ordinance adopted pursuant to this act or of any such floor space with respect to which an impact tax adopted pursuant to this act has been paid. (4) Net proceeds. The gross proceeds of the tax less the cost to the County of collecting and administering the tax. (5) Person. An individual, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity. (6) Person responsible for the impact of land development. The owner of any dwelling unit or commercial building enclosed floor space on the date an occupancy permit is issued for such dwelling unit or commercial floor space or, if no such permit is issued, the date the dwelling unit or commercial floor space is occupied. Section 2. Authorization. The Orange County School Capital Impact Tax. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Section, Orange County may adopt an ordinance levying a tax on the impact of land development within the County and provide for the administration, enforcement and collection of the tax. (b) Orange County may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to this act if any ordinance pertaining to a system of impact fees to provide for capital improvements to public schools within Orange County, adopted pursuant to Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws and Chapter 324 of the 1991 Session Laws, is in effect. Section 3. Use of Tax Proceeds. The purpose of the tax authorized by this act is to generate funds to partially offset the cost of constructing new school capital facilities or replacing, expanding or improving existing school capital facilities necessitated in part by new growth within Orange County. Accordingly, the net proceeds generated by the tax authorized by this act shall be deposited by Orange County in its capital reserve improvements fund or funds established under Part 2 of Article 3 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes and may be expended, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, only for capital improvements projects related to public schools. Section 4. Liability; Administration. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this act shall provide that: (1) A person responsible for the impact of land development shall pay an impact tax for each square foot of dwelling space and commercial building enclosed floor space for which an occupancy permit is issued or, if no such permit is issued, for each square foot of dwelling space in an occupied dwelling and for each square foot of occupied enclosed floor space in a commercial building. (2) The tax shall be due on or before the date an occupancy permit is initially issued for the dwelling unit or commercial building enclosed floor space in question or, if no such permit is issued, the date such dwelling unit or commercial floor space is initially occupied. However, no tax due shall be considered delinquent until sixty (60) days after the tax becomes due. There shall be added to delinquent taxes interest at the legal rate. (3) Taxes authorized by this act may be collected pursuant to G.S. 153A -147 or G.S. 160A -207. In addition, taxes r� L authorized by this act may be recovered in a civil action in the nature of debt including an award.of reasonable attorney fees as part of costs. Section 5. Rates. Orange County shall establish annually at the time of the adoption of its annual budget the tax rate to be levied per square foot of dwelling space and per square foot of commercial building enclosed floor space for the ensuing fiscal year. Different tax rates may be established for different types of dwelling units and different types of commercial building enclosed floor space. Section 6. Provisions for repeal of other local acts, disclosure requirements and effective date. (a) Orange County may repeal all or part of an ordinance pertaining to a system of impact fees to provide for capital improvements to public schools within Orange County, adopted pursuant to Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws and Chapter 324 of the 1991 Session Laws. With respect to an ordinance pertaining to a system of impact fees to provide for capital improvements to public schools within Orange County, Orange County may not adopt an ordinance pursuant to Sections 17 -18.1 of Chapter 460 of the 1987 Session Laws and Chapter 324 of the 1991 Session Laws while an ordinance adopted pursuant to this act is in effect. Section 7. Disclosure Requirements. Whenever the sale of real property located in Orange County involves new construction, the seller shall prepare and sign, and the buyer shall receive and sign, a disclosure statement. The disclosure statement shall either be included in a contract of sale or contained in a separate document executed prior to the execution of a sales contract. This disclosure statement shall fully and completely disclose that the owner of the property at the time an occupancy permit issued for the new construction or, if no occupancy permit is issued, the date the new construction is occupied, may be subject to a tax levied by the County on the impact of land development. If a seller fails to make such a disclosure and the buyer suffers injury as a result of the seller's failure to disclose, the seller shall be liable to the buyer to the extent of the buyer's injury. Section B. Refunds. If this act or any ordinance adopted under this act is declared to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, by a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, then any impact taxes collected under this act shall be refunded to the person paying them together with interest at the same rate paid by the Secretary of Revenue on refunds for tax overpayments. Section 9. Limitations on Actions. (a) Any action contesting the validity of an ordinance adopted under this act must be commenced not later than nine months after the effective date of such ordinance. (b) Any action seeking to recover an impact tax must be commenced not later than nine months after the impact tax is paid. Section 10. This act applies to Orange County only. Section 11. This act is effective when it becomes law. For reference purposes, the items in this resolution with one asterisk ( *) include updates to their content from the similar language that was part of Orange County's 2003 Legislative Agenda. Items with two asterisks ( * *) are new for the 2004 Legislative Agenda. All other items are duplicates from 2003. 1 NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY RESOLUTION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE MATTERS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County that the Board hereby requests the Senator and Representatives representing Orange County to take the following positions on legislation regarding the following matters: REVENUES 1) Support an increase in the cigarette tax, primarily for the purposes of health programs and for reducing and preventing tobacco use (See March 5, 2003 Board of Commissioners' Resolution - Exhibit A), and with a portion of the new revenues being dedicated as a funding source for the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and for the creation of regional processing centers to create value -added products and help promote farm options; 2) Support an increase in the alcohol tax with a portion of the new revenues being dedicated for mental health and substance abuse rehabilitation treatment programs; 3) Support balancing the State of North Carolina budget by closing tax loopholes, including ending the sales -tax cap on boats, planes, and railway cars, doing away with a 2 sales -tax cap on business machinery, repealing a tax credit for cigarettes manufactured in North Carolina but sold overseas, and eliminating an interest expense deduction for banks; 4) Support legislation to re- institute State funding of local school system utility costs; 5) Support legislation to allow all counties to enact various revenue options, with optional local referenda, that have already been authorized for counties in other parts of the State, including real estate transfer taxes, impact taxes for school facilities and other infrastructure, prepared meals taxes and occupancy taxes; 6) * Ensure that the Public School Capital Building Fund disbursements (which for FY 2002 -03 were estimated to have been $794,000 for Orange County had they not been withheld by the state, and for which allocations have been restored for FY 2003 -04) continue to be made on behalf of Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to address pressing capital needs in the next and future fiscal years; 7) Support the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) and North Carolina League of 2 3 Municipalities (NCLM) positions regarding state government reimbursements to local governments; TRANSPORTATION 8) Support establishing a permanent prohibition on billboard advertisements along Interstate 40; 9) Support increased dedicated funding for the establishment and implementation of Rural Transportation Planning Organizations throughout the State; 10) Support legislation providing the North Carolina Department of Transportation with flexibility statewide in addressing acceptance and maintenance of post -1975 recorded subdivisions with unpaved roads to address unintended exclusion from the state - maintained road system (Examples: 1) Developed subdivisions based on unrecorded subdivision plats on pre -1975 unrecorded subdivision plats which plats include publicly dedicated roads and 2) Unexpected Death of Original Subdivision Property Owner and Lack of Owner's Right -of -Way Dedication Signature on recorded plat); SOCIAL SAFETY NET 11) * Support legislation that, at a minimum, returns to the Fiscal Year 2001 -2002 level of funding for State Aid to Counties in the Social Services Budget. These funds have been available from the state for decades to 3 support the administration of state and federal public assistance programs provided through county governments. These funds are used to pay some of the costs of the staff who determine eligibility for Food Stamps, Medicaid and other financial assistance programs. These programs are experiencing growth in the number of persons needing assistance, which has increased the workload for the staff at Social Services. The state should increase its funding to support the county administration of these programs, especially since this is one of the few sources of state funds in any of the operational costs of the local Social Services programs. Two years ago, the Orange County portion of this fund was reduced from $69,603 to $58,851. Since these funds can be used to match federal funds, loss of these funds results in either additional county costs or loss in revenue of $21,504 to support staff at Social Services; 12) Support legislation providing that the State is responsible for providing services to children in need of residential mental health treatment; 3) * Support the reinstatement of Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP) funding and other alternatives to incarceration lost due to budget cuts in the Department of Correction with the understanding that diverting these funds would lead to greater costs and 10 5 challenges for the correctional system as well as the general public; 14) Support adequate funding for Dispute Settlement Centers and other similar entities as these resources provide viable alternatives to the court system, and thereby diminish court costs and the strain on the limited, already over - burdened judicial system, and any diversion of these funds is "penny -wise and pound- foolish "; 15) Support legislation directing that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services put on hold further efforts regarding mental health reform until 1) adequate funding is provided to local governments to address implementation costs, and 2) adequate planning and funding is provided to address the costs which will be incurred with the de- institutionalization activities that will certainly occur as an outcome of reform; 16) Support legislation involving programs and funding to expand the in -home services available to seniors; 17) Support legislation for the funding of intensive home visiting projects that target prevention of child abuse and neglect; 5 I 18) Support legislation which promotes reform of the medical prescription system that incorporates provisions included in the State of Maine system; 19) Support legislation for reinstating and maintaining adequate funding for Smart Start statewide that ensures that children across the state can have the opportunities for success in the same manner as those with Orange County Partnership for Young Children; 20) Oppose cuts in funding to the University of North Carolina Pharmacy School and related activities; 21) * Re- instate funding to the University of North Carolina Dental Clinic to restore it to Fiscal Year 2001 -02 funding levels; 22) Oppose cuts in funding to the North Carolina Poison Control Center which provides immediate life- saving assistance to families across the state and reduces costs to the public, the state, and medical institutions by reducing the public's need to utilize emergency rooms and other medical facilities; SOLID WASTE The State of North Carolina has not demonstrated adequate leadership on recycling efforts. It has failed to 0 V implement strategies and incentives to encourage recycling and also has not instituted penalties sufficient to ensure that recycling opportunities are pursued. This deficiency could begin to be reversed as follows: 23)Support bottle deposit legislation to be applied to any liquids bottled for human beverage consumption including soda, juice, beer, milk, wine, tea, water, and all distilled alcoholic beverages; 24)Support legislation requiring an advance recycling fee (ARF) and a subsequent ban on landfilling or incineration of televisions, computer monitors and other devices using a cathode ray tube (CRT) to display an image on a screen; 25)* Support legislation that promotes and supports the recycling and disposal of white goods including retaining earmarked State revenue sources to support these programs; EDUCATION Orange County believes that political initiatives regarding education that create unfunded mandates for local governments should be opposed. Examples of these include: 26)Legislation which seeks to reduce class size if the State does not include the necessary funding (capital 7 I and otherwise) and thereby creates additional pressures on local school systems for construction of new and expanded school facilities and for additional support staff (Also See #6 above); 27) Legislation that expands programs such as "More at Four'' that obligate local school systems' space if the State does not include the necessary funding (capital and otherwise) and thereby creates additional pressures on local school systems for construction of new and expanded school facilities and for support staff; 28)Legislation cutting or reducing funding and other support to the UNC School of Government (Institute of Government) which has the effect of reducing its effectiveness in assisting local governments in finance, planning, and the many other areas where local governments across the state depend on its breadth of knowledge; OTHER 29) ** Support the Mental Health Treatment Court Pilot bill that provides funding support for mental health treatment courts in the Orange and Mecklenburg judicial districts for adult offenders suffering from mental illness, with treatment aimed at improving their ability I 9 to function in the community and thereby reduce recidivism and easing court caseload (See Exhibit B); 30) ** Oppose unfunded mandates for local governments such as 1) those associated with recent reform efforts at the State level regarding mental health services, 2) regulatory and performance standards concerning solid waste and recycling programs, and 3) standards and funding requirements related to the implementation of the provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act; 31)Oppose legislation which would provide for private sector soil evaluations to become the basis for county health department permitting of septic systems as proposed by the North Carolina Coalition for Privatization of Wastewater Evaluations (See Exhibit C - Orange County Health Department Memorandum); 32)Oppose legislation involving changes to the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) system unless local ABC Boards and local governments are included in discussion and formulation of proposed changes and that any changes "hold harmless" the services and funds provided to local governments under the current system; 0 10 33)Support legislation that continues the current level of State funding for all existing positions in County Soil and Water Conservation offices; 34)Support legislation requiring county commissioner approval for any proposed exercise of eminent domain power by any utility operating in a deregulated environment; 35)Support legislation enabling process free transfers of equipment and supplies from one unit of local government to another during emergencies /natural disasters; 36)Support amending the annexation laws to require consultation with counties, including joint city- county public hearings, on any proposed annexation, and to provide planning and revenue option incentives to county and municipal governments that enter into cooperative planning agreements; 37)Support legislation to Broaden Local Government Authority to Enact Laws to Protect Public Health, Safety & Welfare (Senate Bill 160); 38)Support legislation to prohibit the issuance or execution of open burning permits on high ozone alert days to help avoid North Carolina, Region J, becoming a non - attainment area (Code Orange, Red and Purple Days); 10 11 39)Support legislation to allow counties to collect fees to offset the cost of restaurant inspections; 40) ** Support legislation to allow counties to collect an additional 50 on court costs to help fund capital, operational, and other needs associated with ever- increasing judicial activities; 41) ** Support legislation to eliminate the verification process, have cancellations stand on their own merit, record them based on the same criteria used to record other real estate - related documents, and reduce Register of Deeds liability associated with cancellation process, or, in the alternative, allow counties to begin charging regular recording fees for Notices of Satisfaction and Certificates of Satisfaction associated with Deeds of Trust since there is currently no fee for recording cancellations; 42)Support legislation that, in the event county regulation /inspection of body piercing establishments is state - mandated, adequate state funding is included to address the additional county cost, or, as an alternative, counties are allowed to collect fees to offset the cost of the regulation /inspection activities; 11 12 43) ** Support the instituting of a national criminal record check for long -term care employees (all persons involved in direct patient care) since the current requirement for state criminal record checks is not adequate for a mobile society where many in the work force come from out of state. The current suspension of the state's statutory requirement for a national criminal records check must be lifted, not continued again; 44) ** Support statutory clarification on the definition of special care locked units (units intended to meet certain requirements in order to provide special care for persons with Alzheimer's disease or related disorders; not simply units with a door that locks). Legislative requirements as outlined in Senate Bill 10 (House Bill 60) have been circumvented through interpretation. Locked units must be considered special care by definition or the rights of the residents in those units are violated; 45) ** Support the establishment of a study commission to examine the guardianship laws in our state and to recommend changes for strengthening this system. (Senate Bill 179 and House Bill 246, introduced in the 2001 session, called for the establishment of a Study 12 13 Commission. No action was taken on these bills, with the exception of a task force convened by the Division of Aging.); 46)* *Support the inclusion of a definition for "adequate shelter" similar to that contained in the Orange County Animal Control Ordinance in draft legislation being developed and proposed by the House Interim Committee on the Prevention and Disposition of Unwanted and Abandoned Animals to improve conditions for the animals and the humans who work with them (See Exhibit D); 47)Support some of the Legislative Goals of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), many elements of which were and are initiatives of Orange County, and with the additional Orange County explanatory language included in Bold Italic where appropriate (See Exhibit E); Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner / , the foregoing resolution was adopted this the �(D day of 2004. I. Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said 13 Board at a meeting held on &(lk IL, 2004 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in Minute Book No. of the minutes of said WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this Clerk to the Board of Commissioner EXHIBIT A 15 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN INCREASE IN NORTH CAROLINA'S TAX ON CIGARETTES March 2003 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners joins the Orange County Board of Health in carrying out the responsibility of protecting and promoting the health of the people of Orange County; and WHEREAS, a goal of Healthy People 2010 is to "reduce illness, disability, and death related to tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke "; and WHEREAS, death rates from heart disease and cancer, the leading causes of death in North Carolina and Orange County are partially attributable to smoking and tobacco use; and WHEREAS, North Carolina's cigarette tax is currently $.05, the 3rd lowest in the nation; and WHEREAS, the use of tobacco products costs the State $4.75 billion in medical costs and lost productivity annually; and WHEREAS, each year 24,090 children in North Carolina start smoking each year (66 a day); and WHEREAS, the best way to prevent and reduce tobacco use by children is to substantially increase the cost of cigarettes; and WHEREAS, such a tax increase would result in a 16.1 % decrease in youth smoking rates, preventing 105,750 North Carolina children from starting to smoke and saving 33,750 premature smoking - related death; and WHEREAS, North Carolina expects to suffer approximately a $2 billion deficit in fiscal year 2003, the third year of significant deficits; and WHEREAS, these deficits have caused cuts to important programs affecting the health and wellness of the citizens and more reductions are threatened; and WHEREAS, North Carolina targets almost no state funds towards preventing tobacco use; and WHEREAS, such an increase would generate new revenue; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners supports an increase in the cigarette tax in North Carolina to be used primarily for health programs and for reducing and preventing tobacco use. This the 5th day of March 2003. !',�.:1i. r I Margaret Brown, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners EXN � SST E', 16 ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY RESOURCE COURT FACT SHEET l: 9/2003 ORIGINATED ON APRIL, 2000. A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE OPC AREA PROGRAM AND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 15B: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, PRE -TRIAL SERVICES, CHAPEL HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT CRISES UNIT, THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE. • A VOLUNTARY COURT BASED JAIL DIVERSION PROGRAM. 0 SERVES PEOPLE IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AVERAGE 75- 100/YR. PROVIDES INTEGRATED - SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS DIVERTED FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. • PRESIDING JUDGE: CHIEF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE JOSEPH MOODY BUCKNER. IL ITT TT 71 r. �rnY *7Tc� �nD Tac WAT T f1WTNT _' Cp NTS: • f'� vv A R 1J RE C IT AN S' F 01Z 1 111✓ 1' V LL V V 1 11 It V A-0 A. I AL JANUARY 2001: FEDERAL MENTAL HEALTH BLOCK GRANT (MENTAL HEALTH COURT CASE MANAGER) JANUARY 2002: DRUG COURT: IMPLEMENTATION SITE AUTHORIZATION JULY 2003: DRUG COURT: GOVERNORS CRIME COMMISSION FUND (DRUG TREATMENT COORDINATOR) MARCH 2003: BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE (MENTAL HEALTH COURT CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER) SEPT. 2003: PENDING: COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS: REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO IMPROVE COLLABORATION BETWEEN CORRECTIONS AND MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS • RESEARCH PARTICIPANT FOR 2 STUDIES; COMMUNITY RESOURCE COURT STUDY: NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENT: PENDING. THE SERIO USL Y MENTALL Y ILL IN NORTH CAROLINA'S CRIMINAL JUSTICS SYSTEM TERRY SANFORD INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC POLICY, DUKE UNIVERSITY. MAY 2002. G °�rtY Ned�f� o, .6 c M y o W 0 3 North Carolina Public Health ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Rosemary L. Summers, MPH, DrPH Health Director Richard E. Whitted Human Services Center 300 West Tryon Street Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: (919) 245 -2411 Fax: (919) 644 -3007 www. co. orange, nc. us /hea /th Animal Control Services Central Administrative Services Dental Health Services Environmental Health Services Health Promotion and Education Services Personal Health Services 306 -C Revere Road P 0 Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone: (919) 245 -2361 FAX: (919) 644 -3006 LO a) Y Q) V) flo a� a� E c 0 w 17 EXHIBIT C MEMO DATE: March 21, 2003 TO: Rosie Summers FROM: Ron Holdway Tom Konsler RE: Legislative Proposal for Licensed Soil Scientists to Permit Septic Sites Rosie, At the request of the County Attorney, we prepared this memo to address concerns regarding the recent legislative initiative for the privatization of evaluations of sites for wastewater systems in North Carolina. This idea is being proposed by the North Carolina Coalition for Privatization of Wastewater Evaluations (NCCPWE) and a copy of the most recent information from that group is attached. Please note that there is some concern from the coalition members and others that the proposal does not reflect the position of the group as a whole. (See attached email from Bill Jeter, the section chief for the NCDENR On -Site Wastewater Section). We understand that you have already notified the county manager and our local county commissioners of this push and also that the Local Health Director's Association is preparing a formal response. The current proposal as presented is a three pronged approach to septic evaluations and we will respond to each aspect individually as well as give you our general comments on the idea. As you know, the permitting and approval for on -site wastewater systems has historically been a responsibility of local health departments in North Carolina since the early days of water carried sewage with very few exceptions. The existing program is an excellent public health program with its primary goals of improving water quality and minimizing disease transmission from direct contact with sewage or ingestion of sewage contaminated water. In general, we perceive the allowance of private sector permits is fraught with potential for exploitation. Since the private soils consultants will be hired for the most part by the property owner or developer to assess the soil suitability, the incentive is present for the consultant to find useable soils. There is some experience that demonstrates problems with this approach as large septic systems (larger than 3,000 gallons per day) were permitted by the State until 1992 in a manner similar to the current proposal. There were at least three large systems permitted here in Orange County that became problematic in large part due to poor siting conditions including soil, topography and inappropriate loading rates. Some IN of these systems failed in a very short time after installation. The most notable of these situations was the Piney Mountain Subdivision and that malfunction was eventually remedied by the extension of sewer from the City of Durham. The company that installed the Piney Mountain system also had problem with systems in at least two other counties in North Carolina. At a glance, the proposal contains no public health merit and likely represents a step backwards in program quality. The major thrust seems to be resulting from licensed soil scientists who do not agree with local health department's reviewing their work and from developers who have to wait several weeks to months for their projects to be evaluated. Please be aware that there is no wording of the general statute language for the proposal available to us at this time. As with all law making "the devil is in the details" and we really do not know what the final statutory language will look like. Below are the three major points from the NCCPWE proposal. Our comments on each point follows them and are in italics. 1) Allow for a licensed soil scientist and certified site evaluator to submit soil and site suitability information to the local health department as part of a completed wastewater permit application package. The local health department would be able to issue a wastewater permit based upon this packet of information with little or no field review. The proposed legislation would create a system by which the health department could spot check these proposals prepared by the private sector, but the local health department would not have to perform a duplicate evaluation and may issue wastewater permits with no evaluation. A time trigger would be utilized to create a deadline by which the health department would have to issue a permit or notify the licensed soil scientist and certified site evaluator of any deficiencies in their proposal. For the reasons listed on the first page, we think this approach is suspect. Furthermore, the concept of conducting a "spot check" of those sites recommended for approval is without sound professional merit as it would be cosmetic at best. For discussion, if a problem was discovered in a "spot check" would prior work by the individual Soil Scientist be subject to review and possibly action on outstanding perin its or would we just ignore those existing approvals? It is our impression that Soil Scientists in this setting would have an abundance of authority with little or no responsibility for errors and omissions in their work because the local health department is still the permitting agency. Finally, it is not clear what happens in the event the local health department staff disagrees with the soil scientist and therefore refuses to issue a permit. We have had many submittals fi•oin private soil scientists in the past that, upon field review by our staff, have not accurately represented the true conditions on the site. The expertise of some private sector soil scientists for evaluating on -site systeins has been limited at best and the quality of work varies greatly from one individual or firm to another. "Spot checks" would be a haphazard and meaningless method of quality checks given the variability and complexity of soils and sites. If we were to issue a permit on even one soil report fi°om the private sector without field review, we would be putting ourselves and the future homeowner at great risk and also assuming at least some responsibility for the outcome of that system. 2) Create a certification program for those persons using soils information to propose a wastewater system. The "certified site evaluator" would be allowed to collect site information necessary to complete a wastewater system proposal. A certified site evaluator would not be allowed to perform acts of soil science unless the site evaluator is also a licensed soil scientist in accordance with G.S. 89F. An engineer or other professional that wanted to be involved in small wastewater system proposals would be welcome to become certified through this program. The advantage of certification is that a certified site evaluator could submit a proposal for a wastewater system to a local health department and the local health department could issue M a permit with minimal or no review based upon the certified site evaluator's work and introduce a method by which site evaluators can be held accountable for their decisions. We do not have the same confidence that a certification committee would be successful in taking appropriate action for errors, omissions, and bad actors, let alone making accountability stick. The same type of oversight exists for engineers, licensed soil scientists, and certified operators, but the respective governing boards have been reluctant to take action oil their members. In particular, the North Carolina Board for the Licensing of Soil Scientists already has the legal authority via NCGS §89F -23 to seek injunctive relief against those involved in soils work who are not legally licensed and, to our knowledge, they have refused to take such action even when those persons are apparently ill blatant and multiple violations of the licensing act and operating in direct competition with their own membership. Given this refusal to hold non - members accountable, we do not expect them to hold their own members to any greater or even reasonable standards. It is not clear, but could be assumed that Environmental Health Specialists employed by the local health department would also have to become certified as site evaluators. Regardless, we strive to keep our on -site wastewater staff here in Orange County on the leading edge of technologies and evaluation practices in the field. While we are not opposed to elevating the overall state of practice for local health department practitioners, it would pose another requirement for continuing education and, in effect, be an unfunded mandate for counties to absorb. 3) Require that all lands that are subject to local subdivision approval that do not have access to a public sewer system must be evaluated by a licensed soil scientist prior to recordation with the county register of deeds. Involving the soil scientist at the beginning of a proposed development will assist the developer in making the most out of the proposed development within the parameters of the soils available and will assist the local health department by filtering out unsuitable properties from being proposed for development prior to the permit application stage. We have no objection to this element of the proposal. This is currently an option available to developers proposing a subdivision and is commonly used on a voluntary basis. In Orange County, a variation of this requirement already exists in the current subdivision ordinance. There also needs to be a provision to address subdivisions that intend to use systems other than on -site wastewater systems such as package treatment plants. 20 North Carolina Coalition for Privatization of Wastewater Evaluations P.O. Box 2522 Wilmington, NC 28402 910 - 452 -0001 The North Carolina Coalition for Privatization of Wastewater Evaluations ( NCCPWE) represents the diverse companies, organizations, and persons in NC that believe that the role of the licensed soil scientist in evaluating land for development in NC can be expanded so as to protect public health. Specifically, the North Carolina Coalition for Privatization of Wastewater Evaluations is seeking the following legislative initiatives out of the 2003 and 2004 General Assembly: 1) Allow for a licensed soil scientist and certified site evaluator to submit soil and site suitability information to the local health department as part of a completed wastewater permit application package. The local health department would be able to issue a wastewater permit based upon this packet of information with little or no field review. The proposed legislation would create a system by which the health department could spot check these proposals prepared by the private sector, but the local health department would not have to perform a duplicate evaluation and may issue wastewater permits with no evaluation. A time trigger would be utilized to create a deadline by which the health department would have to issue a permit or notify the licensed soil scientist and certified site evaluator of any deficiencies in their proposal. 2) Create a certification program for those persons using soils information to propose a wastewater system. The "certified site evaluator" would be allowed to collect site information necessary to complete a wastewater system proposal. A certified site evaluator would not be allowed to perform acts of soil science unless the site evaluator is also a licensed soil scientist in accordance with G.S. 89F. An engineer or other professional that :ranted to be involved in small wastewater system proposals would be welcome to become certified through this program. The advantage of certification is that a certified site evaluator could submit a proposal for a wastewater system to a local health department and the local health department could issue a permit with minimal or no review based upon the certified site evaluator's work and introduce a method by which site evaluators can be held accountable for their decisions. 3) Require that all lands that are subject to local subdivision approval that do not have access to a public sewer system must be evaluated by a licensed soil scientist prior to recordation with the county register of deeds. Involving the soil scientist at the beginning of a proposed development will assist the developer in making the most out of the proposed development within the parameters of the soils available and will assist the local health department by filtering out unsuitable properties from being proposed for development prior to the permit application stage. In order to assist in these goals, the NCCPWE needs your help. NCCPWE needs you to perform the following actions: 1) Contact your Senator or Representative and support these initiatives. 2) Be available to testify before the House or Senate in order to discuss how these initiatives will improve the wastewater permitting process in NC without compromising public health. 3) Write a check to NCCPWE in order to help pay for attorney's fees and legislative consultants *. * The purpose of the financial account for NCCPWE is to collect funds to pay fees associated with promoting this legislation. Records of contributions will be kept. In the event that the funds collected exceed the legal fees incurred, the excess monies will be refunded pro -rata. No administrative costs will be incurred, except for the cost of checks and deposit slips and other office supplies necessary to deposit funds and pay bills. 21 From: <Bill.Jeter @ncm ail. net> (Greg Wilder) Subject: [Ehl] North Carolina Coalition for Dear Colleagues: I am certain that you have see the attached NCCPWE proposed initiatives. While these and other topics associated with privatization were discussed by a stakeholders group, these initiatives were not adopted by the group nor are they the consensus of that group. These initiatives are not endorsed nor supported by the Division of Environmental Health or the On -Site Wastewater Section. Bill Jeter, Chief On -Site Wastewater Section �XNi�T_ i D ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE 22 AN ORDINANCE TO F'O/ RID.E FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROT- ECTION IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Please note that the following sections from the"Oran :e go ' un. Animal Ordinance, regarding cruel .to- animals were :� in Ip ace .becas`e of fhe inadequacy of the NCGS to provide Iega .protection' o #animals. The definitions on this page support the. law which is printed on the following page.) p.4: Section VIl — Definitions Adequate Food: The provision at suitable intervals, not to exceed 24 hours, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal. Such foodstuff shall be served-In a receptacle, dish, or container that is physically clean and io which agents injurious to health have been removed or destroyed to a practical minimum. 2 Ade *uate Shelter: That shelfe'r which will keep a non - aquatic animal drys out of the direct path of winds and out of the direct sun, at a temperature at a level that is healthful for the animal, which animal containment area r _ __..�. so that the animal shall be shall be Tree of accui �ullateu vvcID«. ,u -.. free to walk or lie down without coming in contact. with any such waste or debris, and a suitable method of draining shall be provided to eliminate rapidly excess water or moisture. Aquatic or semi- aquatic.animals shall have an adequate amount of clean water in which to move. 3. Adequate Water: A constant access to a supply of clean, fresh afater provided in a sanitary manner- 4. Animal: Any live, vertebrate creature specifically including but not limited to -dogs, cats, farm animals, birds, fish and reptiles. 11. Cruel and Cruel Treatment: Every act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or permitted, such acts or omissions shall include, but not limited to, beating, kicking, hanging, submerge under water, suffocating, poisoning, setting on fire, and depriving of food, water, and medical treatment, or otherwise subjecting the animal to conditions detriir�Ental to its health or general welfare: Such terms, however, shall not be construed to include lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission, lawful activities sponsored by agencies conducting biomedical research or training, lawful activities for sport. 23 EXHIBIT E The Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its general support for the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) 2003 -2004 Legislative Goals as detailed below. In some instances, Orange County has not included some NCACC goals below due to various concerns. In other instances, Orange County may have for various reasons deleted some language that was originally part of an NCACC goal. And in some cases, additional explanatory language has been included to further detail Orange County's position on a particular matter. Any additional language included by Orange County is shown in Bold Italic. NCACC LEGISLATIVE GOALS 2003 -2004 (As Modified by Orange County) Human Resources 1. Medicaid Relief Seek legislation to implement a 6 -year phase out of county participation in the costs of Medicaid, beginning with a cap at current costs in the year 2003. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #1) 2. Long -term Care Seek legislation to improve the long -term care system in North Carolina by: ➢ providing incentives for the employment of direct care givers, ➢ providing income tax incentives for in -home services provided for family members. ➢ funding comprehensive long -term care planning at the county or regional level, ➢ expanding community alternatives for disabled adults, and ➢ increasing funds for Senior Centers. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #6) ➢ reducing the federal, state and local incentives to institutional care 3. Latino Issues Seek legislation to create a Study Commission that includes state and county officials to undertake a comprehensive study of issues affecting North Carolina's Latino population; including, but not limited to, health care and education. 4. Mental Health Services Seek legislation authorizing county commissioners to determine the appropriate local mix of public and private providers for those in need of mental health, developmental disabilities and substance abuse services. 5. State Health Program Mandates Seek legislation to eliminate unfunded state health program mandates. 23 Taxation and Finance 1. Local Government Finance. Seek legislation to allow all counties to enact any or all of several revenue options from among those that have already been authorized for any other county. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #2) 2. Inspection Fees. Seek legislation to allow county commissioners to charge a fee to offset the cost of restaurant inspections, and other fees to offset the costs of health and environmental services. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #5) 3. Legislative Restrictions on withholding of funds. Seek an amendment to the State Constitution of North Carolina stating: "Unless authorized by an act of the General Assembly, the Governor may not withhold from distribution funds that have been collected by the State on behalf of a unit of local government or funds the General Assembly has appropriated or otherwise committed to a unit of local government." (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #3) 4. Sales Tax Exemption. Support legislation to exempt counties, cities, school boards and community colleges from payment of state and local sales taxes on purchases within North Carolina. 5. Improvements to Automobile Property Tax Collection. Support legislation to improve the system through which property taxes on motor vehicles are collected. Intergovernmental Relations 1. Public Duty Doctrine. Seek legislation to restore application of the "Public Duty Doctrine" to local governments. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #4) 2. E911 Fees. Seek legislation to increase flexibility in the use of fees generated for the Emergency Telephone System Fund (E911) in order to expand the ability of counties to use these funds for purchase or lease of any and all communication equipment associated with receiving, processing or dispatching emergency calls for law enforcement, fire, medical, rescue or other public safety services, to include more effective use of Emergency 911 Services through funding of E911 services. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #7) Seek legislation to increase flexibility in the use of fees generated for the Emergency Telephone System Fund (E911) in order to expand the abilities of counties to track and process cellular phone calls. 24 25 3. Economic Development Incentives /Tools. Seek an amendment to the State Constitution that grants local governments additional authority and tools that pertain to economic development, including Economic Development Financing, in order to create jobs in North Carolina. 4. Funding Regional Commission. ➢ Seek legislation to maintain and expand the state's existing financial assistance to regional Councils of Government. Support legislation that would allow the 17 Lead Regional Organizations to study options that allow for greater regional cooperation through councils of government. 5. Economic Development and Unemployment Rates. Seek legislation establishing a mechanism that takes into account county unemployment rates and change in unemployment rates in the application of state incentives for economic development. 6. Local Governmental Retirement System Board of Trustees. Seek legislation that increases local government representation and specifies that these additional representatives must be members of the system. Current law established an oversight boards — one for the Teacher and State Employees' Retirement System (14 members) and one for Local Government Employees' Retirement System (3 members) — in which the State Board votes with the Local Board on issues affecting the Local Government Employees' Retirement System. Seek legislation that restricts the opportunity for elected officials and legislative bodies to withdraw or sequester funds specifically designated for the Retirement Systems. 7. Water Quality /Supply and Infrastructure. ➢ Seek legislation to provide financial resources and local regulatory control to satisfy regional water quality /supply planning needs, along with the resources necessary to meet environmentally sound water and sewer infrastructure needs. ➢ Seek legislation that provides additional funding for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the N.C. Rural Center. ➢ Seek legislation to provide financial incentives to encourage the retrofitting of facilities to diminish the use of water ➢ Seek legislation to establish an authority at the State level to coordinate the use of water resources, the protection of water resources, and a regional and state -wide emergency water resource coordination system 8. Economic Development and Growth Management Strategy. ➢ Seek legislation to clarify the ability of counties through their zoning powers to implement "smart growth" strategies; including the ability to transfer density credits or severable development rights and inclusionary zoning requirements for affordable housing. ➢ Support legislation providing for State funding of affordable housing, environmental programs, acquisition of open space, farmland preservation, rural economic development, and economic development incentives. 25 26 9. Transportation Planning and Funding. ➢ Seek increased funding of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's), Rural Planning Organizations (RPO's), and local /regional transit authorities ivith particular attention to providing funding to modes of transportation that are alternatives to the automobile, e.g. mass transit, bikeways, etc. ➢ Support a fundamental change in the state's planning /organizational structure currently in use to allow for more formal input by local government and a funding formula that provides adequate financial resources to address the state's ever - growing transportation needs. 10. Workforce Development. Support legislation to coordinate workforce development programs and funding of the North Carolina Employment Training & Grant Program. 11. Library and Humana Services Maintenance of Effort. Seek legislation to repeal or revise administrative and/or other rules that require local funding of human services and libraries at continuous levels in order to receive state humala services funding and libraay funding (with library funding coming from the State Aid to Public Libraries Fund). 12. Affnrdahle Hnijcing: Seek appropriations by the General Assembly authorizing recurring funds for the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund to provide new home ownership opportunities and affordable rental homes for those qualified under the North Carolina Housing Trust Fund. 13. Homeland Security and Regional Emergency Preparedness. Seek legislation to re- establish and fully fund the Regional Emergency Management Program and support state efforts to provide planning services for homeland security on a regional basis. 14. Ordinance Authority and Enforcement Mechanisms. Seek legislation to obtain ordinance authority and enforcement mechanisms comparable to municipalities as to nuisance abatement, regulation of unsafe buildings, and minimum housing codes. 15. Retirement System Resources. Support funding initiatives designed to bolster the Local and State Retirement Systems' ability to provide quality customer service to their members. 16. Annexation Support legislation to require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners of an adjoining county when a city in which the city hall is located in another county seeks to annex property in the adjoining county. 26 WA 17. Elections Directors and Employees Seek legislation to clarify the status of directors of elections and other elections employees as employees of local boards of elections, entitled to the protection of the State Personnel Act and the Tort Claims Act and represented by the Attorney General's Office in all matters. 18. Hurricane Relief Fund Oppose legislation that would transfer funds appropriated for the Hurricane Floyd Disaster Relief Project in an effort to balance the state budget. 19. Compensation for taxes on land used for mitigation Support legislation to require compensation from state agencies and units of local government for lost property taxes when they purchase mitigation land in other jurisdictions if it results in substantial, adverse fiscal impact to the host county. 27 W Public Education 1. Oppose Taxing Authority for Local School Boards Strongly oppose legislation to authorize local boards of education to exercise independent taxing authority. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #8) 2. Charter Schools Seek legislation to retain the ceiling on the number of charter schools allowed statewide and to provide for better state oversight and accountability of charter schools. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #9) 3. School Construction Funding Seek legislation to grant to all counties the authority to implement funding options available to some counties, other than property taxes and sales taxes, to fund school construction, school construction debt retirement or other capital needs as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. (Legislative Goals Committee Priority #10) 4. Resolution of School Budget Disputes Seek legislation to amend G.S. 115C -431 to: ➢ Make optional the requirement for a joint meeting between the local school board and the board of county commissioners. ➢ Require that the courts consider factors in addition 11 to the sum off money necessary 4 ...4 n ��� n ��� n f� 4-"f l ii'I tom• i11 r T7 /11 Y1 Lo support a system o f ec public schools l.V Llll�ll,l...lV. other lUnlllllg responsibilities of the county, prevailing economic conditions, ability to pay, and tax effort. S. Standard Course of Study Seek legislation to allocate sufficient state revenues to make the standard course of study available in every public school throughout the state. 6. Public School Capital Building Fund Seek legislation to assure that the Public School Capital Building Fund remains intact and to direct the State Treasurer to report on long term commitments that are dependent on this fund. 7. Community College Appointments Seek legislation to allow each board of county commissioners which participates in funding to appoint one county commissioner to the Board of Trustees of the several Community Colleges in the case of multi - county campuses and, if two additional members are included on the Board, that these be jointly appointed by the boards of county commissioners of counties which participate in funding. 8. Reinstitute State Funding of School Utility Costs Support legislation to reinstitute state funding of local school system utility costs. 9. Add School Nursing Support legislation to appropriate state funds to add school health personnel in all counties so that over a three -year period the state reaches a nurse /student ratio of 1:750. W 29 Criminal Justice 1. Service of Process Fee Seek legislation to increase the civil service of process fee to from $5 to $25 over a five -year period. 2. Video Poker Support legislation that would ban video poker machines. 3. Gun Permits Seek legislation establishing a non - refundable fee for gun permits applications. 4. Medical Care, Prisoners Seek legislation authorizing counties to charge a $10 co- payment for prescription medications provided to inmates who have a denionstrated ability to pay. 5. Criminal Justice Partnership Act Seek legislation to restore full funding for the Criminal Justice Partnership Act. 6. Appeal, Juvenile Treatment Orders Seek legislation to amend G. S. 713-2604 to give the county the right to appeal when a judge issues an order that a juvenile be evaluated and treated at county expense. Agriculture 1. N. C. Cooperative Extension. Support legislation to maintain the funding for the Extension function and the Research function housed within NC Cooperative Extension. we A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THE DIX HOSPITAL CAMPUS WHEREAS, Dorothea Lynde Dix was a social reformer, journalist, and skilled lobbyist who as a young woman wrote, "In a world where there is so much to be done, I felt strongly impressed that there must be something for me to do ", and who during the middle 1800s woke America's conscience to the plight of the mentally ill; and WHEREAS, in the autumn of 1848 Dorothea Lynde Dix came to North Carolina and toured 36 counties to conduct a census of the mentally ill in jails, poorhouses, and private homes; and WHEREAS, in a "memorial" submitted to the North Carolina legislature, she emphasized the need to remove the insane from jails and recommended modern approaches to the treatment of the mentally ill along with specifics of needed buildings and equipment; and WHEREAS, through the persistent effort of Dorothea Lynde Dix and the personal appeal of James C. Dobbin, an influential legislator from Fayetteville, the legislature was persuaded to adopt in December of 1848 an act that provided for an appropriation and the appointment of six commissioners to select a site and oversee the erection of a hospital that would eventually be named in Dix's honor; and WHEREAS, on February 22, 1856, the first person was admitted, suffering from "suicidal mania" and in the first nine months was joined by 51 males and 39 females; and WHEREAS, over the intervening century and a half, thousands of North Carolinians and their families have been served by Dorothea Dix Hospital; and WHEREAS, today the Dorothea Dix Hospital is situated on a beautiful 425 acre tract of land, accentuated by oak and pecan trees, on the south side of Raleigh with a commanding view of the city skyline, making it the largest tract of undeveloped land near downtown Raleigh with an estimated worth in the millions; and WHEREAS, the disposition of this historic property — perhaps the only tangible collective asset of persons with mental health, substance abuse, and developmental disabilities in North Carolina — is the current subject of much debate and discussion as the State moves to close the facility in 2007; and WHEREAS, a special commission has been established to make recommendations to the legislature, drawing upon views and opinions from individuals and organizations as diverse as mental health advocates and professionals, neighborhood activists, government administrators, park designers, and state historians; NOW THEREFORE THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS calls upon the Dix property special commission to be as visionary as Dorothea Lynde Dix and consider supporting an approach that honors the past and inspires the future by reserving an appreciable amount of acreage on the Dix campus for public open space, with the remaining portion of the property to be leased or sold for complementary urban development, with all monies received dedicated to and reinvested in innovative programs and projects that benefit the mentally ill throughout North Carolina. Adopted this the 16th day of March, 2004 Ctv Barry Jacobs, Chair—'-: Orange County Board of Commissioners North Carolina Association of Schaal Administrators' Recommendations Regarding the "No Child Left Behind' Act February 2004 Almost all education professionals, including the 6,000 who are members of the North Carolina Association of School Administrators (NCASA), agree with and wholeheartedly support the aims of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. We believe in the philosophy of educating every child who comes through the schoolhouse door and doing so in an equitable and fair manner. This overlying theme is a mainstay of No Child Left Behind and is the same guiding principle that the members of NCASA have been striving to achieve throughout our careers in public education in the State of North Carolina. In addition, our members concur with and support many of the finer points of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). We agree that all educators should work to ensure that every child can learn and deserves to learn from highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals. We agree that public schools must place more emphasis on closing the achievement gaps of minority and low-income students. We concur that testing is a necessary tool for measuring student achievement, although we believe testing cannot and should not be the sole barometer of an student progress. And finally, �Ye bGlleve educator s sl I%JUI%A sll �ve lV �I UOLO 01 educational system in which schools are held accountable for their students' progress. While NCASA agrees that educators in this state and across the nation should work to achieve these goals, our membership has encountered some difficulties in our efforts to implement and comply with the mandates of No Child Left Behind. Our organization, which is the only professional organization in the state that serves the entire administrative team of North Carolina's school systems and individual schools, has facilitated panel discussions and several dialogue sessions among individual groups of school administrators about NCLB over the last two years. We have concluded through these discussions that the U.S. Department of Education needs to make modifications to the implementation guidelines of several facets of this massive, federal law. We also have concluded that action by our Congress may be necessary to fund NCLB at an appropriate level to allow our public schools to implement the law as intended, to ensure that no child is left behind in our public education system. The North Carolina Association of School Administrators and our entire membership respectfully request that the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Congress take immediate and appropriate actions to clarify and modify the implementation process for No Child Left Behind, based on the concerns and recommendations that we have summarized on the pages that follow. We believe the modifications we are recommending will strengthen the federal law and make it easier for all educators to implement. Most importantly, we believe addressing the concerns we have outlined will leave intact the goals and high purpose that emerged from the original legislation in 2002, with our public school students as the true beneficiaries. NCASA is seeking U.S. Department of Education and/or Congressional actions to address concerns our school administrators have identified with the implementation of the following components of the No Child Left Behind Act: 1. Accountability Model of Adequate Yearly Progress 2. Personnel Qualifications 3. Funding In each of the segments that follow, we outline the concerns school administrators have raised with each component of the federal law and the solution we recommend to help the U.S. Department of Education and our Congress modify the law's implementation for the sake of our schools and our students. °I Accountability Model of Adequate nearlyProgress Since North Carolina has made great strides in increasing student performance under the state's ABCs accountability model, our state perhaps more than many others, is struggling with the perceived all or nothing accountability model mandated under No Child Left Behind. Research -based practices drive the growth -based ABCs model in North Carolina. For a number of years, we have been disaggregating our data and analyzing groups of students to find ways and methods to help those students not at grade level. We are proud of the progress our students have shown. At the same time, we are concerned that our required transition to the Adequate Yearly Progress accountability model will bring this progress to a screeching halt, as parents and communities become unnecessarily alarmed over school performance reports tied to No Child Left Behind. In essence, the problem is this: Schools that miss even one AYP target are given the same "failing" label and sanctions as schools missing multiple targets. We need a better way. This problem is compounded, when you consider that schools with diverse populations have more groups that must reach targets, making it harder for them to perform up to expectations. Here's an analogy. Imagine you are a college student taking seven freshman -level courses, while your roommate is only taking three freshman -level courses. Imagine also that any course grade lower than an "A" means you fail the semester. What is the chance you will make at least one B versus your roommates chances? You have seven chances to fail, while your roommate can focus his efforts on achieving "As" in only three courses. This "all or nothing" approach in the context of No Child Left Behind seems to mandate "Absolute Progress" in requiring schools and school systems to reach ALL their accountability targets, while missing none. We contend that 2 H 100 - percent success in reaching all accountability targets is much more than "Adequate Yearly Progress," as called for under No Child Let Behind. That achievement level is more indicative of "Absolute Yearly Progress," and we believe this expectation in the law sets the majority of our public schools up for failure on this national barometer of achievement. This point is emphasized by the AYP performance results for North Carolina schools in the 2002 -2003 school year. The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction reports that 356 schools failed to make AYP by missing only TWO targets, and 286 schools failed to make AYP by missing only ONE target or subgroup's achievement rate. In fact, some schools failed to make AYP because five or fewer students scored below the required level on the AYP reading or math test. We believe these reports show that the implementation of Adequate Yearly Progress in reality is asking our schools to achieve Absolute Yearly Progress, and we ask for, modifications to address this issue. ISSUE: NCLB's "all or nothing" accountability model penalizes schools and school systems by labeling those that miss only one target the same as those that rniss multiple targets. RECOMMENDATION: "Achievement Levels" of Adequate Yearly Progress should be established to distinguish between schools that miss one or two targets and those that miss all or multiple targets. In connection with these proposed "Achievement Levels," only the schools missing numerous subgroup targets should face sanctions under No Child Left Behind. The issue above outlining our concern on NCLB's "all or nothing" approach is exacerbated by constant changes in school populations across North Carolina. An individual school's subgroups that are included in the Adequate Yearly Progress computation may vary from year to year, as students move from school to school or from one district to another, particularly in high - growth areas of our state. As a result, a school or school system can miss its Adequate Yearly Progress target simply because a new subgroup was added that year. We reiterate that "all or nothing" is an unrealistic expectation for our public schools, and we ask for modifications to ensure that all schools and school systems have a fair chance to succeed. ISSUE: NCLB's "all or nothing" accountability model penalizes schools and school systems that have the most diverse and fastest - growing student ,population, since it requires them to reach more targets to succeed. RECOMMENDATION: A subgroup's test results should be reported every year, but in order to be included in determining Adequate Yearly Progress, the subgroup should exist at a school for two consecutive years. 3 In a related finding, we believe that Adequate Yearly Progress, as it is currently defined, is not the best way to measure school performance, since it focuses on sanctions for a school or school system that fails to meet a pre- determined achievement bar, commonly called. a cut score. Because of unique learning differences, especially among students with special needs, requiring all students to reach the same cut score or achievement level is a problematic expectation. NCLB requires Limited English Proficient (LEP) students to be tested in English (at grade level) even though they may have had limited time or exposure to English when tested. The law also holds Students with Disabilities, who have been identified because of some learning difficulty, to the same standard of proficiency as all other students. As educators, we know that these two groups of students with special needs require and deserve additional attention by school personnel to help them achieve "below"- grade- -level in most circumstances. So testing special -needs students at grade level and expecting them to achieve at the same pace as their peers without special needs places an undue burden on the students and ultimately limits the school and school system's ability to meet their AYP targets. North Carolina school administrators believe we should report all the test scores but recognize that some students may take a little longer to, or may never, attain "adequate" performance levels because of their special needs. Because this portion of the NCLB law seems so unfair to school staff who are striving to help special populations of students succeed, we risk the possibility that they will either blame some groups of students for hurting their school's reputation, or ignore the law altogether. The testing requirements of special needs students under NCLB, perhaps more than any other of the law's components, need to be reviewed and then followed by a modified plan for implementation, and we respectfully ask the U.S. Department of Education and/or our Congress to initiate this action. ISSUE: NCLB expects all students within a school or school system to achieve the same level of proficiency, despite their limitations or special needs, including those who have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or who speak English as a second language. This expectation in reality sets difficult, if not impossible, achievement levels for too many special needs students. RECOMMENDATION: Special education students should be assessed on their individual progress through appropriate measures that recognize their unique leaming differences. In addition, test scores for students who speak English as a second language should not be applicable in the AYP determination for a minimum of two years or until the student is deemed English language proficient as determined by a statewide test. 4 NCLB's high expectations of special -needs students also help illustrate another concern we have identified with the federal law's accountability model: the federal law contains no component for rewarding or recognizing individual student growth. This is true for students at all ends of the learning spectrum, from the students with special needs who we discussed above, to the highest achievers in our schools. In fact, since so much time and resources must be focused toward helping subgroups with the lowest performance levels meet their AYP targets, school personnel may divert attention from high achievers who they expect will easily score above the AYP requirement. An unintended consequence may result, as our schools' top achievers are not challenged to reach higher levels. Prior to NCLB, the North Carolina accountability model recognized schools for the growth students showed each year, not whether they jumped over some hurdle. A high - performing student population was expected to continue to learn and grow. We think that an accountability model that focuses more on rewards and less on consequences is a better way to judge schools, since growth in student achievement is recognized and encouraged. Again, we offer an analogy. The business you operate has 5 percent of the market share. If you increase that market share to 10 percent, that is significant growth. It is important to recognize that improvement, even though your company may still only have one-fourth of the market share of the leading company in that market. Likewise, the barometer for school performance should focus on continuous improvement, and not on the performance observed at some snapshot in time. ISSUE: NCLB sets absolute expectations for children within specific subgroups, when the growth of these children, particularly those with special needs and those who are typically high achievers, would be a better measure of success. RECOMMENDATION: North Carolina's plan for compliance with NCLB should be allowed to include growth as a significant part of the determination of student progress and school success. The success we have achieved under North Carolina's growth -based accountability model brings us to another concern about the No Child Left Behind accountability model. Our greatest fear is that North Carolina parents will perceive their school or school system as failing under the new federal law, as opposed to succeeding under the nationally recognized North Carolina accountability model. A review of a school or school system's performance under North Carolina's ABCs plan is an apples -to- oranges comparison of performance under No Child Left Behind. But that is a confusing message for parents to understand. In connection with our concern about the public's perception of a school or school system's performance under NCLB, we are concerned about the impact that perception will have on our ability to staff our schools adequately with highly 5 I qualified personnel. Staffs at high - performing schools that make expected and above expected growth under North Carolina's ABCs plan and then do not make AYP become demoralized. There is a concern for the out - migration of teachers to escape the brand of failing AYP. This trend is expected to exacerbate North Carolina's teacher shortage beyond its current crisis level, in which our public schools annually must fill 10,000 to 11,000 teaching positions, while our education programs in our state's universities are turning out only approximately 3,500 eligible teachers each year. Of that number, only approximately 2,500 enter the classroom in North Carolina. ISSUE: Parents and communities find it difficult to distinguish the difference between the ABCs (in North Carolina) and AYP (under the federal law), and the two do not have the same measures. A school can be a School of Excellence under North Carolina's ABCs model and not meet AYP, and that can send an unnecessary alarm, which leads to confusion, through a School of Excellence's community. Ultimately, this can cause teachers and other personnel to leave a school or school system that fails to make AYP and worsen our state's teacher shortage, particularly in parts of the state that have high growth and very diverse student populations. RECOMMENDATION: "Achievement Levels" of Adequate Yearly Progress) should be established to distinguish between schools that miss one or two targets and those that miss all or multiple targets. In connection with these proposed "Achievement Levels," only the schools missing numerous subgroup targets should face sanctions under No Child Left Behind. To put our concerns with AYP into perspective, we ask you to consider the incredibly quick timeline connected with it. While roughly 150 years has passed since the beginning of the common school movement in our nation, No Child Left Behind asks all educators to achieve the goal of "universal proficiency" in merely 12 years. Universal proficiency, as defined by NCLB, is assuring that every student, regardless of race, poverty, disability or language proficiency, is academically successful. The goal itself, while worthy, is lofty and seems almost unachievable. When that consideration is grouped with the fast pace of the reforms and the depth of the individual mandates affecting AYP alone, our school administrators are struggling to succeed and are. asking our Congress and the U.S. Department of Education for assistance. 2. Personnel Qualifications The new personnel qualifications set forth in No Child Left Behind pose an additional concern for school administrators in North Carolina. The NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher makes it very difficult for North Carolina school administrators to recruit teachers in an already shrinking pool of personnel, as referenced above. It may also cause districts to lose a number of experienced teachers because they do not meet the new standard. And conversely, the highly qualified teachers may be drawn away from a district that I" has a number of schools not meeting the Adequate Yearly Progress accountability requirements. ISSUE: NCLB requires all teachers to be highly qualified in the content area in which they are assigned to teach. While simplistic in theory, this requirement is problematic in practice, since teachers must either attain certification in multiple subject areas or receive alternative credit for additional subject areas through a process that is tedious and difficult for school administrators to utilize efficiently. Special education teachers are most affected by this requirement, since they must teach multiple subjects to students with learning disabilities. The requirement may ultimately cause North Carolina's short supply of teachers, particularly those with expertise in special education, to dwindle further, causing additional hardships for our school systems and our students. RECOMMENDATION: Teachers should be given the opportunity to show their expertise in the areas in which they will be teaching or already have been teaching beyond their major, and the process for awarding credit for demonstrated skills should be simplified. In a related matter, personnel administrators have concerns over the 24 college credit hours in a content area required for classification as a highly qualified teacher. Many wonder why 18 hours is not sufficient for highly qualified status, since that amount satisfies the add-on licensure process in North Carolina. Personnel administrators also request clarifications to determine what 24 . hours of credit are appropriate to count, when evaluating a teacher's qualifications. Above all, personnel administrators ask for more time from the federal government to collect, analyze and report on data to determine if a teacher is highly qualified. This is especially true, since the supporting documents that are required for meeting the highly qualified status are difficult, or almost impossible, to locate in some circumstances. Many personnel directors have expressed frustration that the National Teacher Examination (NTE) scores from 10 to 15 years ago are not available for the teachers currently involved in the hiring process, thus making the highly qualified status unattainable for some of our state's most experienced teachers. ISSUE: Requiring North Carolina teachers to increase their credit hours from 18 to 24 in one content area in order to gain "highly qualified" status under NCLB may be a costly mandate that will exacerbate North Carolina's teacher shortage, which already has reached a crisis stage. RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Education should issue guidelines offering direction on what credit hours may count toward the "highly qualified" requirements for teachers and allow some flexibility in credit hour requirements to honor existing state licensure and reciprocity policies. 7 0 In another related matter, North Carolina school administrators have expressed similar concerns over No Child Left Behind's new requirements for highly qualified teacher assistants, or paraprofessionals. In fact, school administrators have a heightened sense of concern over paraprofessional qualifications, since the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in November 2003 submitted its required report on highly qualified personnel to the U.S. Department of Education. That report shows that highly qualified teachers are teaching 83 percent of North Carolina classes, while only 35 percent of North Carolina's paraprofessionals are highly qualified. New paraprofessional standards went into effect when President Bush signed the NCLB bill into law on January 8, 2002. Previous employment criteria, as set in N.C. State Board of Education (SBE) policies, recommended only a high school diploma. The change in standards shocked many North Carolina paraprofessionals, who viewed the changes as a threat to their employment. However, recent reports by school systems have been very positive. In fact, many paraprofessionals are excited about being included in staff development training, and they feel more like team members with the teachers. Being included in training activities has validated their employment. Yet, North Carolina school administrators emphasize that efforts to transition all our paraprofessionals to the new standards will not happen overnight, and we. need assistance to meet the requirement of having 100 percent of our teacher assistants highly qualified by 2008, as called for under No Child Left Behind. In addition, many administrators wonder where the money will come from to bring current paraprofessionals up to the new standards in No Child Left Behind and ensure that the pool of paraprofessionals eligible for employment does not shrink and ultimately hold a negative impact for our students and classrooms. We urge Congress and the U.S. Department of Education to identify a pro- active solution to this massive problem facing all North Carolina school systems. North Carolina is still evaluating the number of teachers and paraprofessionals receiving sustained, high - quality staff development. A recent survey found that 47 percent of our teachers reported having English as a Second Language students in their classes, but only 6 percent reported 8 or more hours of staff development within the last 3 years on how to instruct those children with special needs. ISSUE: Staff development of teachers and paraprofessionals will become a focal point for meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals and maximizing student successes in the classroom. School administrators will devote considerable,I attention and resources toward staff development issues and numerous delivery options. r� \ RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Education, in implementing the professional development requirements of NCLB, should allow adequate time for school personnel to comply. In addition, our U.S. Congress should provide adequate federal funding to allow school systems to make improvements in this area. 3. Funding No Child Left Behind, as embraced by President George Bush and our Congress, has brought with it a slight increase in federal education funding. North Carolina's public schools are grateful for this increase, and we ask our Congress to find the additional funds necessary to enable us to implement NCLB as intended. Quite simply, the increase in federal funding is not sufficient to cover the increased demands of the federal law. According to research compiled by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), the change in aggregate K -12 funding as a result of the first -year implementation of No Child Left Behind was an increase of $5 billion or a 1.1 percent increase in overall K -12 funding nationwide. AASA reports the following information on nationwide Title 1 basic funding, which is the centerpiece of NCLB: e $13.5 billion was authorized in Fiscal Year 2002, while the federal = budget allocated only $10.3 billion that year. • $16 billion was authorized in Fiscal Year 2003, but the federal budget allocated only $11.6 billion; and • $18.5 billion was authorized for Fiscal Year 2004, yet the federal budget allocated only $12.3 billion. The finance officers in our school systems have identified some key areas of concern with federal funding for No Child Left Behind, as allocations currently stand. We ask you to consider the following funding concerns, as the Fiscal Year 2005 federal budget is shaped and approved this year. We expect a huge increase in transportation costs associated with transporting students to their parents' school of choice, after a student's current school fails to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress requirements for a second year. In relation to that concern, we expect budget deficits in infrastructure and physical plant costs, as some schools burst at the seams with an influx of new students after second -year AYP assessments. We have previously outlined concerns with the hurdles we expect in helping our teacher assistants become highly qualified to meet new federal requirements. We must reiterate here that the staff development costs associated with helping to bring the 65 percent of our current teacher assistants up to highly qualified standards could be exorbitant. In addition, North Carolina 01 school systems will incur costs in upgrading the remaining 17 percent of our teachers to highly qualified status in the prescribed timeframe. While we agree the investment is worthwhile, we look to our Congress for assurance that the federal budget will cover these expenses because the funds simply are not available at the state or local level. Finally, we would like to point out that there is one hidden cost not taken into consideration with the passage of No Child Left Behind or the federal funding associated with it. Finance officers and personnel directors in North Carolina both have identified data - collection costs as a missing piece of the puzzle under NCLB. One prime example is the increased time and training that will be necessary to help school personnel properly code and report information through the Student Information Management System (SIMS). The extra time required for human resource and financial staff in public schools to collect, analyze and report data in new categories defined by No Child Left Behind is not only an increase in workload for these individuals, but also is a huge drain on the school system's operating budget. Funding for data collection should be given a high priority in the upcoming federal appropriations process. Again, we reiterate that we are grateful for the increases that our Congressional delegation has been instrumental in pushing through for public schools in North Carolina. We simply ask you to push for more so that we can give the mandates of No Child Left Behind the attention and resources necessary to help our schools and our students succeed. ISSUE: The legislation authorizing No Child Left Behind set adequate federal funding levels for its successful implementation by the states; however, the federal budget has fallen short of those funding levels in subsequent years. This funding shortage is made more difficult by a provision in the law that requires a certain percentage of allocated funds to be set aside for remediation and school choice ' issues in connection with a school's placement under Title I school improvement status. RECOMMENDTION: The U.S. Congress should appropriate additional federal funds to meet the funding levels established by the authorizing legislation of No Child Left Behind. Additionally, a thorough analysis should be undertaken to determine the state and local funding requirements to fully implement the law. In conclusion, NCASA and our membership would like to reiterate our commitment to helping all students in all schools succeed academically. We believe the No Child Left Behind Act gives us an opportunity to work within the existing education system to educate all children, and we vow to maintain our leadership stance in working to achieve that goal of universal proficiency. 10 North Carolina schools are recognized as leaders in innovation, in student improvement and in accountability. While No Child Left Behind presents us with many challenges, we find those challenges worthy of our best efforts as education leaders. We pledge our continued efforts to teach every child in every North Carolina classroom, and we ask the U.S. Department of Education for assistance in interpreting troublesome portions of the federal law and modifying implementation plans for those NCLB components. In addition, we ask our Congress to ensure we have the monetary and other resources required for complying with this ambitious federal directive. With your assistance, North Carolina schools can ensure No Child Left Behind is more than the name of a federal law or even a lofty goal. It is our hope that No Child Left Behind will become the reality of education efforts in every North Carolina classroom. We thank you in advance for your assistance in helping us make strides in this process for the sake of all North Carolina students. It a, North Carolina, Orange County, and No Child Left Behind • Signed into law Jan. 8, 2002 • Tremendous impact on North Carolina's public schools • Closing achievement gaps • High achievement for ALL students • Highly qualified teachers • Has been integrated with the ABCs • Greater local school accountability and control • Rewards for success • Sanctions for not meeting standards • Strong basics • Flexibility in resource allocation • Parent communication, participation, and, in NCLB, school choice 13 1 In 2001, the General Assembly mandated that, beginning in the 2002 -03 school year, the state include a "closing the achievement gap" component in its measurement of student growth Grades 3 -8 Reading and MathPercent of Students Proficient difference betveen black andwhite perfornance Year Achievement Gap Percentage points 2002 -03 21.9 2001 -02 27.8 2000 -01 30.0 1996- 97 34.3 ch i 100% of students proficient or better in reading and mathematics (according to state standards) by 2013 -14 Building on the success of the ABCs to meet the goal of the federal law I� 2 • Expands testing — scope and participation • Focuses assessment data on subgroup performances • Increases reporting of disaggregated data results and progress toward closing the achievement gap • Raises standards for teacher and paraprofessional quality • Opens more options for parents — supplemental services, information and school choice ABCs • "growth" model • ABCs measures: overall performance of the school growth of students over time NCLB • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): "all or nothing" model • AYP uses ABCs scores to measure: whether specific groups of students meet specified goals — regardless of how much they have grown 15 3 H LUMEHIND Efland- Cheeks Elementary School Subject Target All ECE Black White Econ. Disadv. Students w Disabilities Reading 68.9 86.5 YES 75.4 YES 93.3 YES 81.1 YES 69.1 YES Math 74.6 89.6 YES 77.2 YES 95.0 YES 84.4 YES 74.5 NO Ibi c • The school as a whole • Limited English • White Proficient • Black • Students With Disabilities • Native American • Economically • Asian /Pacific Islander Disadvantaged • Hispanic Students • Multiracial Orange County Schools 2002 -03 • The school as a whole • Limited English •White Proficient • Black • Students with Disabilities • Native American • Economically • Asian /Pacific Islander Disadvantaged • Hispanic Students • Multiracial Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools. 2002 -03 rr'i t V 11 • All subgroups meet or exceed AYP targets for the year OR • The percentage of students not scoring proficient in a subgroup is reduced by at least 10 percent in a year, and the subgroup makes progress on the other AYP indicator • At least 95% of eligible students take the test • Attendance or graduation rate goals are met 5 wr • $1,500 bonus for certified staff in schools making High Growth • $500 bonus for teacher assistants in schools making High Growth • $750 bonus for certified staff in schools making Expected Growth • $375 bonus for teacher assistants in schools making Expected Growth • North Carolina • 840 schoolwide • 235 targeted assisted • Chapel Hill - Carrboro Orange County • 0 schoolwide • 0 schoolwide • 7 targeted assisted • 5 targeted assisted s` C, ..'. au • • By June 30, 2006, all core subject area teachers will meet NCLB's definition of highly qualified • Teachers must meet the requirements for full certification and have demonstrated competency in each of the subjects that they teach • Chapel Hill - Carrboro 93.42% • Orange 93.32% • Durham 79.30% • Chatham 89.78% • Alamance 83.02% • Wake 85.45% • STATE 82.70% �I • High school degree • Associate's degree and /or two years of higher education • Formal assessment of instructional abilities including a staff development component • Work under direct supervision of a highly qualified teacher • Requirements vary, depending on school and position held ; • "All or nothing" model penalizes schools and school systems by labeling those that miss only one target the same as those that miss multiple targets • "All or nothing" model penalizes schools and school systems that have the most diverse and fastest - growing student population CHI'. M 10 a • NCLB expects all students within a school or school system to achieve the same level of proficiency, despite their limitations or special needs • NCLB sets absolute expectations for children within specific subgroups, when the growth of these children, particularly those with special needs and those who are typically high achievers, would be a better measure of success • Parents and communities find it difficult to distinguish the difference between the ABCs and AYP, and the two do not have the same measures • A school can be a School of Excellence under ABCs and be a failing school under NCLB 11 • NCLB requires all teachers to be highly qualified in the content area in which they are assigned to teach • Problematic because teachers must either attain certification in multiple subject areas or receive alternative credit for additional subject areas • Particularly affects special education teachers since they teach multiple subjects • Requiring North Carolina teachers to increase their credit hours from 18 to 24 in one content area in order to gain highly qualified status may be a costly mandate that will exacerbate North Carolina's teacher shortage • Staff development of teachers and paraprofessionals will become a focal point for meeting AYP goals • School administrators will devote considerable attention and resources toward staff development issues a 4 12 • NCLB legislation set adequate federal funding levels for successful implementation, but the federal budget has fallen short of those funding levels • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975 promised federal funds of 40% of the cost of serving an exceptional child, but almost 30 years later, there is a 68% shortage of full funding for the program f• • Requirements of NCLB combined with lack of adequate funding may result in a significant strain on school systems • Non - compliance with NCLB could result in a loss of federal money Federal Expenditures 2001 -02 System $ amount % of budget Orange County Schools $2,661,141 5.48% Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools $3,005,653 13.37% • North Carolina Department of Public Instruction www.ncpublicschools.org • Chapel Hill - Carrboro Schools district Web site www.chccs.k12.nc.us • Orange County Schools district Web site www.orancle.k12.nc.us • North Carolina Report Cards www.ncreportcards.org • North Carolina Association of School Administrators Recommendations Regarding the No Child Left Behind Act: February 2004 As- 13 EFNEP /Breast - feeding Program Early in December 2003, it was announced that funding for the North Carolina In -Home Breastfeeding Support Program (IHBSP) had been denied by Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in Atlanta, ending the program. The In -Home Breastfeeding Support Program started as a pilot program in Wake County through other funding sources in 1991, and was so successful in assisting limited resource women with breastfeeding that many counties added it as quickly as they could arrange funding sources. The Breastfeeding Support program was started in Orange County in September 2000 when funding was received from Food and Nutrition Services as part of a statewide proposal. The Orange County Commissioners have provided emergency funding from human services safety net dollars through the end of the fiscal year in order to continue to meet the need of the clients in Orange County. Although the state was proactive in resubmitting the grant after the first denial, the criteria was so extreme and limited that it was impossible to design a program that would meet the criteria. The criteria included limitations for serving only food stamp recipients, which would exclude many limited resource families that need this vital service. This is hard to understand, since the FY 04 Guidance for Food Stamp Nutrition Education document shows that allowable nutrition education programs include ` Breastfeeding education, promotion and support which is coordinated with WIC and which supplements and complements WIC services, rather than supplanting them ". The program in North Carolina met these criteria, yet it was not funded. We would appreciate your influence in determining if the review for funds was administered fairly in the Southeastern region. Orange County has also delivered nutrition education to limited resource families for 30 years through the federally funded Expanded Foods and Nutrition Education Program. This program has been very successful in addressing many of the problems that are now in the forefront of issues, such as nutrition, overweight and health concerns. The program teaches families to utilize resources that they have to the fullest extent, and personal success stories of program participants indicate that many have been able to leave public assistance programs. In the current fiscal year, the EFNEP program suffered a 10% cut in funds. In the fiscal 2005 President's budget, the 10% was reinstated, and your support is needed to insure that the money is included in the budget, and that incremental increases be approved in subsequent years. These funds are part of USDA's appropriations under the Smith Lever Programs, and are one of the 3D line items. The State Cooperative Extension Service has been very supportive and made available matching funds to offset a complementary aspect of the program, but they have been unable to assist financially with the breastfeeding education. The legislative delegation is encouraged to push for more, not less, state funding through for popular programs like this at the county level through the University system of extension services. Bio- solids Disposal Orange County is among the top five North Carolina counties in terms of acreage on which wastewater treatment bio- solids (sludge) is applied. The County receives bio - solids from wastewater treatment plants operated by Hillsborough and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) in the County, from Mebane and Burlington in Alamance County and from the City of Durham in Durham County. The process of land applying liquefied bio- solids is regulated by the NC Division of Water Quality under US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations, policies and guidelines under a primacy agreement with the USEPA. Bio- solids are generally applied to agricultural land (primarily land used for active livestock grazing or growing of forage crops) at "agronomic" rates. Agronomic rates in this case indicate that the sludge is applied such that its nitrogen/phosphorous content is consistent with the rate of application of standard fertilizers. Unlike commercial fertilizers, however, bio- solids containing industrial wastes typical of municipal wastewater treatment systems usually contain a number of potentially harmful heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, arsenic, lead, mercury), synthetic and volatile organic compounds (SOC's and VOC's) as well as some level of active (Class B sludge) pathogenic organisms typical of human waste residues. The land application of sludge to agricultural lands is exempt — as both a "discharge" wastewater treatment activity and an agricultural activity — from approval, regulation, enforcement or effective oversight by County land, environmental protection or health regulation. Yet potential effects to the health of nearby residents that are associated with aerosol or surface and ground water contamination are woefully un- or under - studied by the EPA or the Center for Disease Control. Residents of Orange County that live nearby to sludge application sites are fearful of risks to their health and have at least anecdotally reported a higher incidence of health and nuisance problems to the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, Orange County seeks to open a dialogue on some level of local control for sludge application activities within the County. BARRYJACOBS, CHAIR ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MARGARET W. BROWN, VICE CHAIR MOSES CAREY JR. POST OFFICE BOX 8181 ALICE M. GORDON 200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET STEPHEN H. HALK /OT /S HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278 March 26, 2004 Senator Ellie Kinnaird Representative Gordon Allen Representative Joe Hackney Representative Verla Insko Dear Senator Kinnaird and Representatives Allen, Hackney and Insko: \rh War °t% We write first to express Orange County's gratitude for your past support and assistance with legislative initiatives of importance to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. In past years, Orange County has definitely benefited and appreciated your assistance with various legislative pursuits. Several areas of recent note include: 1) Approval during 2003 of Senate Bill 232 — Bikeway Funding; 2) Efforts to implement a more significant Cigarette Tax to reduce tobacco use, to reduce premature smoking- related deaths, to provide dedicated funding for farmland preservation, to address budget deficits, and to limit or reverse funding cuts to important programs affecting the health and wellness of North Carolina residents; 3) Proposals to implement alcohol tax increases with provisions that would direct a portion of the proceeds to substance abuse treatment; 4) Efforts to establish an electronics recycling program; 5) Efforts to increase opportunities, incentives, and benefits for the preservation of farmland and open space; 6) Pursuit of a Local Option Tax Menu (House Bill 664); 7) Efforts to provide for City /County Anti - Discrimination Ordinances. The Orange County Board of Commissioners appreciates the efforts and energy you've expended in support of these and other initiatives, and trusts that the 2004 legislative session will afford opportunities to further that support. We are forwarding to you the attached documents detailing the Board of Commissioners' legislative priorities for the 2004 General Assembly session. The documents address our Board's positions on issues of importance to our residents. www. co. orange. nc. us Protecting and preserving — People, Resources, Quality of Life Orange County, North Carolina — You Count! (919) 245 -2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246 On behalf of the Board, I look forward to your support of these items and will be glad to provide any additional information necessary. You are welcome to contact any of the Commissioners at the following telephone numbers for additional information: Margaret Brown, 929 -4640; Moses Carey, 933 -8494; Alice Gordon, 933 - 0550; Steve Halkiotis, 732 -4813; and Barry Jacobs, 732 -4941. Commissioners can also be reached through Donna Baker, the Clerk to the Board, at her office in Hillsborough at (919) 245 -2130. Sincerely, Barry Jacobs, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Attachments Cc: Orange County Board of Commissioners County Manager John Link County Attorney Geof Gledhill Ron Aycock, NCACC Ed Regan, NCACC www.co.oran.ge.nc.us Protecting and preserving — People, Resources, Quality of Life Orange County, North Carolina — You Count! (919) 245 -2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246