HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-14-2001-2dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 14, 2001
Action Agenda
Item No. ~.
SUBJECT: Policy Statement Regarding the Equitable Allocating of Funds for County
.. P~ects ,_,. ..._..
DEPARTMENT: County Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
May 23 Memorandum from
Commissioner Gordon - "County Commissioner Alice Gordon
Policy on Equitable Allocation of
Funds for County Projects"
May 28 Memorandum from TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Commissioner Gordon - "Data Hillsborough 732-8181
Related to County Policy on Chapel Hill 968-4501
Equitable Allocation of Funds" Durham 688-7331
(Continued From June 5, 2001 BOCC Mebane 336-227-2031
Meetin
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 resaurces 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 throughaut Orange County.
BACKGROUND: In April, the County Commissioners adopted a "Policy Statement Regarding
the Expenditure of County Bond Funds for Parks and Open Space." The accompanying May
23 and May 28 memoranda from Commissioner Gordan provide background material and
further information on this subject.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The policy would have no immediate financial impact. Long-term
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
2) Adapt a statement reafFrming 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 reafFirm 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
TO: Boazd of Couaaty Commissioners and Manager
FROM: Alice Gordon ~ M(r
1tE: County Policy on quitable Allocation of Funds for
County Projects ~ ,
DATE: May 23', 2001-
Below Y have outlined my thoughts concerning the equitable
allocation of funds for County projects, including bond projects.
I. E unable distribution of resources throu hoot the coup
In deterrr~n#ng projects to be included in a county bond referendum,
the Orange Couaty Commissioners have always tried to plate an
emphasis on ensuring that there is an equitable distribution of
resources throughout Orange Covnty. As projects sere considered.;.
the decision to go forward with a particular project has always been .
made la the. context of an overall vision to address needs of Cftizens
all over the county. .
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 fox an
upcorr~ingpresentation 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 Parks and Open Space" as
follows:
"The County will strive to ensure that, between FY 1997 and
FY 2010, bond funds fox 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 200p Census."
The decision to adopt this policy was made in some haste at the very
end of a commissioners meeting as part of the push to forrward the
Open Space Task Force Report to the Capital Needs Advisory Task
Force in time for the tatter's April ZS meeting.
Gordon -May 23 Page Z.
IIL Concerns with the_nolicy for allocation_ of funds. for_ narks and
oven space
In retrospect, this appears to be a flawed policy, for several reasons,
although the motivation to ensure equitable distribution of resources
over a period of time is still valid.
A. The palicv 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 allocation, of futads in the
area of parks and open space?
B. The olic is retaroactive. We should revisit the question of
whetherand/ar how our policy should be retroactive (i.e. before the
2001 bond referendum) and if so, whether i~ should include more
than just bond fiends. We use multiple funding sources for many
projects, including bond referendum funds, other kinds ~of debt
instruments, grant funds, pay-a~-you-go funds, and so fvxth.
C~.' The oli does not refl t the corn lexi of the issues involves.
Before the policy was adopted, the County Conunissior~ers had a long-
standing unwritten ~pvlicy of striving to allocate resources, whether
band funds or other funds, so as to serve citizens all ever'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
Ar least the following issues should be eonsidered in any bond
allocation and funding equfty policies:
(~) whether the policy should be comprehensive, including all
categories of bond projects and other county funding
(2) what the geographical unlts for allocation should be
(3) whether the policy should include more than j ust bond
funds, such as other debt instruments, grant funds, pay-as-
you-go funds, and so forth
(4) how often the policy implementation should be evaluated
and what n~,easures should be used
(5) whether some projects are "county-wlde" and if so, how
would they be treated under the policy
(6) other appropriate questions.
A. eaffixmation of commitment to unable distribution of
resources. •
The Commissioners should affirm their existing commitment by
adopting the following statement:
The Commissioners hereby reaffirm 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:
. Adoption of a more comorehen~s9ve„DOIicy
The Commissioners should decide whether to adopt a policy for bond
projects hnmediately, or whether ft is advisable to consider the many
facets of the question as.outlined above.
(1) if there is a desire to act immediately concerning bond fund
allocation, then_the following action could betaken:
6
Gordon ~ May Z3 Page 4
The Commissioners hereby adept the following "Policy
Statement Regarding the Expenditure of County Bond Funds"
The County will strive to ensure that for the next ten years, •
FY 2001-202 through FY ZQ],0-2011, the expenditure of bond
funds fox non-school projects will.be proportionallylaalanced
throughout the county, based on the population distribution of
the County in the 2QO~ ceztsus.
For Schaal projects, the expenditures will be made according to
established policies, as amended from time to time.
(Z) If it is considered advisable to just adopt a policy for the 2001
bond referendum, that c~ul'd also be done.
(3) If it is considered advisable to just rea,~~rxn 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. Recommends ons
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 in Section N-A above, xeaf~i rming the
County's commitment to equitable distribution of resources.
C. Decide whether and how to replace the allocation policy four 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 grange County. Take the
appropriate action and/ar provide' appropriate direction to staff.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and Manager.
FROM: Alice Gordon ~~fs
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 Band
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 5.
I. Background
A. Corr t 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. E citable allocation of resources is com lei
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
planning and zoning polities. 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 currently 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 - Pa_r_ks and Open Space Bond Only.,(Cwrrent Policy
What if the County. followed its recently adopted policy of allocating bond
funds for parks and open space over the time period of 1997-2010? The next
page shows that policy Hong. with a.ssotiated data being provided to the CNATF.
Parklan and Recreation/Park Po elation - 2000 Census
Faciii.ties - 1997 Bond Referendum COSTS (Approximate figures)
Chapel Hill Township 79.6 96 66 96
Other Six Townships 16.2 96 3496
Not Attributable to One
Georgraphic Area 4.2 95 -
B 1997 Bond Referendum - All Protects 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)
Efiand Sewer Project $1.2 million, (3) Parks and Open Space $6.0 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 Protects -
1997 Bond Referendum COSTS
Chapel Hill Township (or CHCCS) S 1.4 95
Other Six Townships (or OCS) 44.9 96 .
Not Attributable to One
Geographic Area 3.7 96
Po elation - 2000 Census
(More recent figures)
67.1 96
3 2.9 96
C. Parklands and Recreation/Parks Facilities ~All_Pund;ing Sourees 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
1995-2010? The two page "data attachment" shows that data.
Parks/O ' en S ace Land All Funding 5ourc~s 1995-2001 .Population -
Acauisi.tion and ACRES COSTS 2000 C us
Recreation/Parks Fa 'lities PRESERVED (More recent figures)
Chapel Hill Township 30.3 96 ~ S 1.0 95 67.195
Other Six Townships 69.796. 47.196 32.9 96
Not Attributable to One
Geographic Area -~- 1.9 96 -
Please let me know if ,you have questions.
9
r,
O
.-~
~'
Yi
.~
.~
U
0
'~
n
a
m
~~
a.
Q
-n
~S
W~
~~ ~
~~ ~'
~V
~ ~~
Q
~'
.~
0
rW
"'C3 ~ a,
~ ~ C
'~U`'-
.,
o ~ ~~
o a .~
-~ q~ '~
~ ~
~ v ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ '~ 0
r~ ~
'"yl ~
'0
~ k N
~ ° .?
,~ O y
n n`
~' tW ~
~ ~
'~
•~
~~.~~ - raw
Q~ 'a '~
O
0
'~
~ o s
U ~~
~ ~ ~_
e
a
a
4
0
a
R.
U h
G
~~
F. ~
O
•r
N~
~~
•~'~
b
Ca
tl
~Ot
.~
1 ~~ '`~
~ !+
~y Q VI
O ~ }
`~ a ~
C A,'
N
~ ~
.a~ b
n a
~~ ~
°' a
a
a~
~C
N
N p,
a
m
.~
~~
01 G
_~ ~
'a L
~ n
G A
O y
C ~
iL '~
.Iw O
7 N
pL D
.CJ ~
H O
O1
N
Y
V
d' q)
O ~
t '~'
ro
~ ~
~~
ad
d H
} ,.
~' H
~ ~
~ ~
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 S s -All Projects Combined -PERCENTAGES
Township Non-School. School TOTAL
Projects Projects COST
($9.0 million) ($47.0 mi.]]ion) ($5 6.0 million)
Chapel Hill Township
(or Chapel Hill-Carrboro
City Schools, CHCCS)
Other Six Townships
(or Orange County
Schools, OCS)
Not Attributable to
One Geographic Area
TOTAL
53.195 ~ 51.196 S 1.4 96
24.196 48.9 96 44.995
22.8 96 - 3.7 96
lao.o 96 loo.0 96 100.0 96
Status of Parks/Open Space Land Accuisition and Park/Recreation Facilities -
All Fundin Sources Combined 1995-2001-PERCENTAGES
Parks/Open Space Parks/Recreation TOTAL
Land Acquisition Facilities COST
ACRES COST COST
PRESERVID
Chapel Hill Township 30.3 96 75.9 96 30.0 96 S 1.0 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 100.096 100.0 96 100.0 96 100.0 96
* 1995 ~ FY 1994-1995, 2001 ~ FY 2000-01. Total fox all funds, including grant
funds. Also includes project funds both spent and encumbered.
Population - 2000 Census (More recent figures) -PERCENTAGES
Chapel Hill Township 67.196
Other Six Townships 32.9 96
10
TOTAL 100:0 96
11
CORDON -DATA ATTACHMENT -PAGE B
Data Related to County Policy on Equitable Allocation of Funds for
County. Projects - RA,W NUMBERS S/28/2001
1997 Bond Referendum Status -All Pro"ects Combined -.RAW NUMBERS
Township Non-School School TOTAL
. Projects Projects COST
Chapel Hill Township ($9.0 million) ($47.0 million) ($56.0 million)
(or Chapel Hill-Carrboro $4,775,000 ~ $24,000,000 $28,775,000
City Schools, CHCCS)
Other Six Townships
(or Orange County $2,173,954 $23,000,000 $25,173,954
Schools, OCS)
Not Attributable to $2,051,046 - $2,051,046
One Geographic Area
Status of Parks/O en S ace Land Ac uisition and Park/Recreation Facilities -
All Funding,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 $ IOS,S60 $ 251,046
One Geographic Area
TOTAL 637 $6,076,612 $7,211,750 $13,288,362
* 1995 W 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.
Population =2000 Census~More recent figures ,,- RAW NUMBERS
Chapel Hill Township 79,274
Other Six Townships 38,953
TOTAL 118,227