HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-05-2001-9gORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 5, 2001
Action Age da
Item No.
SUBJECT: Policy Statement Regarding the Equitable Allocating of Funds for County
Projects
DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (YlN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
May 23 Memorandum from
Commissioner Gordon - "County
Policy on Equitable Allocation of
Funds for County Projects"
May 28 Memorandum from
Commissioner Gordon - "Data
Related to County Policy on
Equitable Allocation of Funds"
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Commissioner Alice Gordon
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 96$-d$01
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE:
1) to reconsider the County's recently adopted "Policy Statement Regarding the
Expenditure of County Bond Funds for Parks and Open Space".
2) to reaffirm the County's long-standing commitment to serve all Orange County's
citizens by striving to ensure an equitable distribution of resources throughout Orange
County.
3) to consider replacing the recent parks and open space allocation policy with a more
comprehensive policy that articulates the County's commitment to ensuring an
equitable distribution of resources throughout Orange County.
BACKGROUND: In April, the County Commissioners adopted a "Policy Statement Regarding
the Expenditure of Caunty Bond Funds for Parks and Open Space." The accompanying May
23 and May 28 memoranda from Commissioner Gordon provide background material and
further information on this subject.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The policy would have no immediate financial impact. Long-tens
financial impacts are .unknown.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1) Reconsider the County's recently adopted "Policy Statement Regarding the
Expenditure of County Bond Funds for Parks and Open Space." A motion to
reconsider must be offered by someone voting for the previous motion.
2) Adopt a statement reaffirming the County's commitment to equitable distribution of
resources, as given in Commissioner Cordon's May 23 memorandum on page 3 in
Section IV - A as follows:
The Commissioners hereby. reaffrm the County's long-standing commitment to
serve all Orange County citizens by always striving to ensure an equitable
distribution of resources throughout Orange County.
3) Decide whether and how to replace the allocation policy for parks and open space
with a more general comprehensive policy that articulates the County's long-standing
commitment to serve all Orange County's citizens by striving to ensure an equitable
distribution of resources throughout Orange County. Take the appropriate action
and/or provide appropriate direction to staff.
3
MEMORANDUM
T0: Board of County Commissioners and Manager
FROM: Alice Gordon (~ MCr
RE: County Policy on Equitable Allocation of Funds for
County Projects
DATE: May 23, 2001
Below I have outlined my thoughts concerning the equitable
allocation of funds for County projects, including bond projects.
I. Eau1ta.ble distribution of resources throughout the county
jn determining projects to be included in a county bond referendum,
the Orange County Commissioners have always tried to place an
emphasis on ensuring that there is an equitable distribution of
resources throughout Orange County. As projects were considered,
the decision to go forward with a particular project has always been
made in the content of an overall vision to address needs of citizens
all over the county,
II. Poli statement re ardin the ex nditure of coup bond funds
for a lcs and o ens ace
It was~a desire to articulate the commissioners long-standing
commitment to an equitable distribution of resources, and to
articulate that commitment using specific language in dme for an
upcoming presentation to the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force, that
led to the recent adoption of a "Policy Statement Regarding the
Expenditure of County Bond Funds for Farks and Open Space" as
follows:
"The County will strive to ensure that, between FY 1997 and
FY 2010, bond funds for parks and open space are
proportionally balanced between Chapel Hill Township and the
other six townships, based on the population of those
townships In the 2000 Census."
The decision to adopt this policy was made in some haste at the very
end of a cornmissioner5 meeting as part of the push to forward the
Open Space Task Force Report to the Capital Needs Advisory Task
Farce in time For the tatter's April 25 meeting.
4
Gordon -May 23
Page Z .
III. Concerns with the policy for allocation of funds for Darks and
o ens ace
In retrospect, this appears to be a flawed policy, for several reasons,
although the nxotivation to ensure equitable distribution of resources
over a period of time is still valid.
,A. The_ooliw is not comprehensive. The policy fails to consider
equitable distribution of resources in all categories of bond projects.
In 1997 and again in 2001, there are many categories besides
schools either funded or being considered, including:
Affordable housing
Community college
County projects
Parks and recreation, open space, Lands Legacy
Senior centers
Water, sewer, wastewater (Efland Sewer project)
Are we only going to practice equitable aliocatioxt of funds lun the
area of parks and open space?
B. Thepoli~ is .retroactive. We should revisit the question of
whether and/or ,how our policy should be retroactive (i.e, before the
2001 bond referendum) and if so, whether IX should include more
than lust band funds. We use multiple funding sources for many
projects, including bond referendum funds, other kinds of debt
instruments, grant funds, pay-as-you-go funds, and so forth.
C. The olio does not ret7eet the corn lexi of the issu involved.
Before the policy was adopted, the County Commissioners had a long-
standing unwritten policy of shriving to ailocate resources, whethez•
bond funds or other funds, so as to serve cftizens all over the County.
In the. formulation of the recent written policy, there were many
Issues not addressed. These unaddressed issues include the ones
mentioned above, and several others.
Gordon -May 23
Page 3
At least the following issues should be considered ian any bond
allocation and funding equity policies:
(X) whether the policy should be comprehensive, including all
categories of bond projects and other county funding
(2) what the geographical units for allocation should be
(3) whether the policy should include more than just bond
funds, such as other debt instruments, grant funds, pay-as-
you-gofonds, and so forth
(4) how often the policy implementation should be evaluated
and what measures should be used
(5) whether some projects are "county-wide" and if so, how
would they be treated under the policy
(6) other appropriate questions.
A Reaffiurmation of commitment toe uitable distribution of
reso
The Commissioners should affirm theiur existing commitment by
adopting the following statement:
The Commissioners hereby reaffirm the County's long-standing
commitment to serve all Orange Covnty citizens by always
striving to ensure an equitable distribution of resources
throughout Orange County.
B. Ado don of a more com rehensive lic
The Commissioners should decide whether to adopt a polity for bond
projects immediately, or whether it is advisable to consider the many
facets of the question as outlined above.
(1) If there is a desire to act lntmedlately concerning bond fund
allocation, then the following action could be taken:
6
Gordon -May 23 Page 4
The Commissioners hereby adapt the following "Policy
Statement Regarding the Expenditure of County Bond Funds"
The County will strive to ensure that for the next ten years,
FY 2001-2002 through FY 2010-2011, the expenditure of bond
funds for non-school prof ects will be proportionally balanced
throughout the county, based on the population distribution of
the County in the 2000 census.
For school projects, the expenditures will be made according to
established policies, as amended fi-om time to time.
(2) If it is considered advisable to just adopt a policy for the 2001
bond referendum, that could also be do»e.
(3) If it is considered advisable to just reaffirm the County's general
commitment,-or if it is advisable to pursue a more general equitable
allocation policy, incorporating the issues raised above, then the
Commissioners should provide appropriate direction to staff.
V. Recommendations
A. Reconsider the County's recently adopted "Policy Statement
Regarding the Expenditure of County Bond Funds for Parks and Open
Space." A motion to reconsider must be offered by someone voting
for the previous motion.
B. Adopt the statement given !n Section N-A above, reaffirming the
County's commitment to equitable distribution of resources.
C, Decide whether and haw to replace the allocation policy for parks
and open space with a more general comprehensive policy that
articulates the County's long-standing commitment to serve all
Orange County's citizens by shriving to ensure an equitable
distribution of resources throughout Orange County. Take the
appropriate action and/or provide appropriate direction to staff.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and Manager
FROM: Alice Gordon 4~~ G
RE: Data Related to County Policy on Equitable Allocation of Funds
for County Projects
DATE: May 28, 2001
On May 23 I wrote a memorandum on "County Policy on Equitable Allocation of
Funds for County Projects" suggesting that we should reconsider the County's
recently adopted "Policy Statement Regarding the Expenditure of County Bond
Funds for Parks and Open Space" at the regular BQCC meeting on June 5. It is
my understanding that the item is on the Action Agenda for June S .
I. Background
A. Current bond lic 's roblematic
In that memorandum, I suggested that this bond policy was flawed for several
reasons that I outlined. I further suggested that the County should adopt more
general language to reaffirm its long-standing commitment to serve all
Orange County's citizens by striving to ensure an equitable distribution of
resources throughout Orange County, and then discuss the question. of what
further policy statements were desirable.
The purpose of this memorandum is to illustrate some of the points made in the
May 23 memorandum by presenting data related to the County's allocation of
resources.
B. Equitable allocation., of resources. is complex
Before I do that, let me reiterate that the question of the equitable allocation of
resources is complex. One of those complexities involves the County's statutory
responsibilities, especially concerning those Categories of responsibility
within and outside its planning. and zoning jurisdiction (i.e. municipal
jurisdictions). On the one hand, the County is responsible for school facilities
all over Orange County. On the other hand, the county is not now responsible
for functions within municipalities that relate to or are affected by town
plarming and zoning policies. Examples are recreation and parks, libraries,
and affordable housing. They could become solely county responsibilities
(even within the towns) via a memorandum of agreement, but presently they
are not just the responsibility of Orange County.
The three scenarios given below start with the ~urrentiy adopted policy for
the allocation of bond funds for parks and open space, along with associated
information being distributed to the Capital Needs Advisory Task Force
(CNATF). The second and third scenarios vary the assumptions given in the
first scenario. However, all three scenarios use the premise that the allocation
is between the percent of resources going to Chapel Hill Township on the one
hand, and the other six townships on the other hand, as stated in our currently
adopted policy. All three scenarios also use the premise that the percent for
all categories will be grouped into one final total percent, since that was done
for the current policy. The underlying data for the percentages for scenarios
two and three were provided by Orange County staff.
a
Gordon -May 28, 2001
Page 2
II. Alternate Scenarios for Equitable Allocation of Resources
Below are data summaries that illustrate alternate scenarios for the allocation
of resources. The data are given on subsequent pages.
A. 1997 Bond Referendum -Parks and Open Space_ Bond Only LCurrenC_Polic~
What if the County followed its recently adopted policy of allocating bond
funds for parks and open space over the tune period of 1997-2010? The next
page shows that policy along with associated data being provided to the CNATF.
Parklands and Recreation/Park Poy_tilationT 2000 Census
Facilities - 1997 Bond Referendum COSTS (Approximate figures)
Chapel Hill Township 79.5 96 66 96
Other Six Townships 16.2 96 3496
Not Attributable to One
Georgraphic Area 4.2 96 --
B. 1997 Bond Referendum - All Projects Combined
What if the County followed a similar policy of allocating bond funds over the
time period 1997-2010, but applied the policy to all bond projects? The two
page "data attachment" shows the data related to that allocation of resources.
The bond projects in 1997 included (1) Affordable Housing $1.8 million, (2)
Efland Sewer Project $1.2 million, (3) Parks anal Open Space $5.0 million, with
$3.0 million for parklands and $3.0 million for facilities, and (4) $47 million for
schools, with $24 million for the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and
$23 million for the Orange County Schools (OCS).
All Projects -
1997 Bond Referendum COSTS
Chapel Hill Township (or CHCCS) S 1.4 96
Other Six Townships (or OCS) 44.9 96
Not Attributable to One
Geographic Area 3.7 96
P elation - 2000 Census
(More recent figures)
67.1 96
32.9 96
C. Parklands and Recreatlon/Parks Facilities -All Fundin 5 urces 1995-2001
What if the County followed a policy of allocating money from all funding
sources for parklands and recreation/parks facilities over the time period of
1995-201Q? The two page "data attachment" shows that data.
Parks/O en S ace Land All Funding Sources 1995-2001 Population -
:4cquisition and ACRES COSTS 2000, Census
Recreation/Parks Facili 'es PRESERVED (More recent figures)
Chapel Hill Township 30.3 96 51.0 96 57.196
Other Six Townships 59.7 96 47.196 3 2.9 96
Not Attributable to One
Geographic Area -- 1.9 96
Please let me know if you have questions.
0
n
d'
L
O
.y
.~
v
d
O
m
d
a
O
"l7
•
•
i~
~V
^^~.
~I
0
w
~,
a
wl
w
0
0
.~
~~
~~
- hd
"'V
~^
N
~+~y
y
'~ t+
•~ ~
~ "~ C
ti
~i
~ ~ C
~Q
~ N
O V
,~ o .s
'N~ ~i
~ C
V •~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
o ~ o
•~ O
~_
•?~ ~ ,~
~ ~ ~
r.
O
U ~, ~
~~~_
•
.~
d
b
4
Qo
m
R
y
g
y
O
ti
d
b
~~ C
m R,
+~ y
U ~
O ~
CV ~f
V
N
~ ~
C
?h
b
a
a
b ~
a .w
~4
~~
fi
U [~
~ ~
~ ,O
d q
a a
a $
N
^~ h
'7 ~
q ~
~~
~ N
.~w ~
~i
~ N
.~
0
~1
0
m
`a
a
C1
0
ro
q ~
a_ ~~~{(
~ ql
~ N
e ~
~ 3
O1 ~
_C ~
~ i
~ d
tl A
Y
o
~ ~
~ O
~ ~
~~
_ ^^^ppp~
N
Y
U
~ ~
o ~
a }
~~
d~
~ }
L y
d ~
~~
d~
'~ H
r ,
K ~
9
GORDON -DATA ATTACHMENT -PAGE A
Data Related to County Policy on Equitable Allocation of Funds for
County Projects -PERCENTAGES 5/28/2001
1997 Bond Referendum Status -All Proiects Combined -PERCENTAGES
Township Non-School School TOTAL
Projects Projects COST
($9.0 million) ($47.0 million) ($56.0 million)
Chapel Hill Township
(or Chapel Hill-Carrboro 53.196 S 1.196 51.4 96
City Schools, CHCCS)
Other Six Townships
(or Orange County 24.196 48.9 96 ,44.996
Schools, OCS)
Not Attributable to
One Geographic Area 22.8 96 -- 3.7 96
TOTAL 100.0 96 100.0 96 100.0 96
Status of Parks/Oven Soace Land Aoauisition_and Park/Recreation_ Facilities=
All Fundine Sources Combined,_1995-2001 -PERCENTAGES
Parks/Open Space Parks/Recrearion TOTAL
Land Acquisition Facilities COST
ACRES COST COST
PRESERVED
Chapel Hill Township 30.3 96 75.9 96 30.0 96 51.0 96
Other Six Townships 69:7 96 21.7 96 68.5 96 47.196
Not Attributable to -- 2.4 96 1.5 96 1.9 96
One Geographic Area
TOTAL 100.0 96 100.0 96 100.0 96 100.0 96
* 1995 = FY 1994-1995, 2001 = FY 2000-01. Total for all funds, includin g grant
funds. Also includes project funds both spent and encumbered.
Population - 2000 Cens (More recent figures) -- PERCENTAGES
Chapel Hill Township 67.196
Other Six Townships 3 2.9 96
TOTAL 100.0 96
10
GORDON - DATA ATTACFIlvIENT - PAGP B
Data Related to County Policy on Equitable Allocation of Funds for
County Projects - RAW NUMBERS 5/28/2001
1997 Bond Referendum„-Status -All Projects Combined -RAW NUMBERS
Township Non-School School
Projects Projects
($9.0 million) ($47.0 million)
Chapel Hill Township
(or Chapel Hill-Carrboro $4,775,000 $24,000,000
City Schools, CHCCS)
Other Six Townships
(or Orange County $2,173,954 $23,000,000
Schools, OCS)
Not Attributable to $2,051,046 -
One Geographic Area
TOTAL
COST
($56.0 million)
$2$,775,000
$25,173,954
$2,051,046
Status of Farks/O en S ace Land Ac uisition and Park/Recreation Facilities -
All Fundin Sources Combined 1995-2001 -RAW NUMBERS
Parks/Open Space Parks/Recreation TOTAL
Land Acquisition Facilities COST
ACRES COST COST
PRESERVED
Chapel Hill Township 193 ** $4,615,000 ** $2,165,000 $6,780,000
Other Six Townships 444 $1,316,126 $4,941,190 $6,257,316
Not Attributable to -- $ 145,486 $ 105,560 $ 251,046
One Geographic Area
TOTAL 637 $6,076,612 $7,211,750 $13,288,362
* 1995 = FY 1994-1995, 2001 = FY 2000-01. Total for all funds, including grant
funds. Also includes project funds both spent and encumbered.
** Includes 44 acres for school sites, costing more than $1 million.
Po elation - 2000 Census More recent fi ures -RAW NUMBERS
Chapel Hill Township 79,274
11
Other Six Townships 38,953
'TOT'AL 11$,227