HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20050505APPROVED 06/23/2005
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
May 5, 2005
(re-convened from May 3, 2005)
6:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners reconvened the May 3, 2005 Regular
Meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 5, 2005 at the Southern Human Services Center in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Steve Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Managers Gwen Harvey and Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
members will be identified appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
Dinner - 6:00 p.m.
Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m.
9-d. Implementation of 60-40 Capital Funding Policy
Chair Carey said that the County Commissioners indicated at the last meeting that they
would proceed with considering the policy options 2 and 4, and the option provided by
Superintendent Carraway. The County Commissioners asked the staff to make
recommendations on each option as they are presented.
Rod Visser made reference to the new appendices. There were four new items -
appendices 22-25. Appendix 22 is a list of the staff considerations for the capital funding
options. With regard to question #6, "Does the 60/40 target apply only to the period 2005-15,
or should it be applied on a rolling basis to each subsequent ten-year CIP period until the
BOCC makes a formal decision to change the policy?" The staff recommendation is that the
60/40 approach will be used in all subsequent ten-year CIPs until the Board decides differently.
He made reference to question #7, "If the Board of Commissioners makes decisions that
increase or decrease the amount of total capital funding expected to be available during the
ten-year period (e.g. future bond referenda), is the 60/40 target to be recalculated to reflect the
new total?" The staff recommendation is not to add any new revenue into the 60/40
calculations, and to use the 60/40 as it applies to pay-as-you-go money, and have any other
new debt-financing stand on its own to deal with emerging needs.
Appendix 23 is a one-page table on the CHCCS High School #3 possible revised
funding stream. Appendix 24 is an outline of some of the elements that would need to go into a
capital funding policy. John Link pointed out that they do speak specifically to Cedar Ridge
2
under Debt Service, in the last bullet, "If Cedar Ridge debt is removed from the equation, there
will be no reference to it or peak debt service in this new policy."
Rod Visser said that when they are talking about earmarking impact fee money to pay
debt service upfront, they are not talking about using it for anything, but that it would be-used
for new school space.
Commissioner Gordon said that allocating impact fees for debt service up front in the
calculations affects the amount of money available to schools. She wants to know how this
affects High School #3. In conjunction with the interlocal agreement there was some pay-as-
you-go impact fee money planned to finance the high school. That included $1.6 million per
year in future impact fees, and the new policy would take this away because the money would
be going to debt service. John Link verified this.
Rod Visser said that Appendix 25 is a comparison of capital funding options.
John Link said that the staff did look at Superintendent Carraway's proposal and they
appreciated the effort, but they still believe that option 2 or 4 would be the best course of action.
Chair Carey agreed with John Link.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked staff how they are tracking and predicting future impact
fees. Rod Visser said that they are budgeting conservatively and they are not budgeting any
extra than they normally would receive. They want to make sure to continue to not allocate
impact fees until the money is in the bank.
Chair Carey asked if the Board agreed with the Manager's recommendations for
questions 6 and 7 and Appendix 22. Everyone but Commissioner Gordon said that they felt
comfortable with these recommendations.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
approve the recommendations for questions 6 and 7 on Appendix 22 as follows: The 60/40
approach will be used in all subsequent ten-year CIPs until the Board decides differently. And
that no new revenue will be added into the 60/40 calculations, and the 60/40 will be used as it
applies to pay-as-you-go money, and any other new debt financing will stand on its own to deal
with emerging needs.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Carey said that any action taken needs to be incorporated into the final draft of
the written capital funding policy and brought back to the Board. He said that the two options
that the Board asked to be brought back were options 2 and 4.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that since they recognized that they have $18 million
in pent up maintenance money and that for approximately three years, the County has not had
any recurring capital for its needs, that the first three years of the ten-year period be spent on
option 4, and then switch to option 2. This would be a compromise for what he might prefer.
otherwise.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would prefer option 2.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked staff to give additional numbers for Commissioner
Jacobs' preferred plan.
Commissioner Jacobs said that it would be a $700,000 a year difference to give up
front to the County.
Commissioner Foushee said that she feels obligated to support a straight option 2
because of her uncertainty of what would happen with High School #3. She feels that a hybrid
of options 2 and 4 brings uncertainty.
Chair Carey said that their primary purpose of looking at options is to provide more
funds for County projects and to simplify the capital funding policy. He said that this is a work
session and the public has not had a chance to comment on the hybrid that Commissioner
Jacobs suggested. He is inclined to support option 2.
3
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
to approve option 2 of the Capital Funding Options.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs)
9-e. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board of Education Reauest for Additional Fundina for Hiah
School #3 Construction
John Link made reference to the letter dated April 22, 2005 from Superintendent
Pedersen, which is a request for additional funding for the completion of High School #3. The
resolution by the Board of Education adopted April 21St was a request to the County
Commissioners to provide an amount of $7,534,200, which would bring the total amount for the
high school to $39,176,200. Appendix 18 is a series of questions asked of the school board
last week and the responses.
Commissioner Gordon pointed out that this is not a work session but a continuation of
a regular meeting.
John Link gave his recommendation. He said that the way he would respond is the
way he would expect the Board of County Commissioners to ask of him if the outcome of a bid
process was proportionately the same amount as the school board's was. The first question he
would ask is at what point the architects give any indication that the increase would be
something other than what was indicated in the fall - $4.5 - 5 million. He would be concerned
about the architects sharing relevant information about where they are in the bid process
because he knows how the prices of steel and concrete are, but there is a point where the
architects should advise not going out to bid because of the price increases. He made
reference to page five of appendix 18, or the letter dated April 29th, which lists the alternates
that were sited for the building. He would expect the County Commissioners to tell him in a
situation like this to go back and see what can be done about the alternates to cut back on the
cost overage. On page 11 of the letter, there is about $1 million worth of extra costs, for things
such as environmental issues. He would ask the Board to consider whether these extras are
necessary. He would also recommend that the Board look at the Manager's recommendation
of reallocation of the $12.8 million for Elementary School #10 - $3.5 million is already
earmarked for the OCS Middle School #3. There is also $3.8 million earmarked for High
School #3, and the Board could decide to allocate more or less for this. He pointed out that the
County has no other source of revenue to address its capital issues, such as the new senior
centers, the animal service building, and the County campus. His last recommendation is that
the school board looks at how it might address some of the difference between $3.8 million and
the total overage of $7.6 million by looking at pay-as-you-go priorities that were given to the
Board last week. He would expect the Board to tell him to go back to the pay-as-you-go CIP
and see where to find other funding to make up the difference in a project with such overages.
Chair Carey agreed with John Link about the questions that the Board would raise to
its own staff.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked if the County Commissioners had asked the school
board to make sure that this school was generator ready to be used as a community shelter.
Steve Scroggs said that there is a line item that talks about the generator costs. Commissioner
Halkiotis asked if the County Commissioners asked them to do this, or if the staff asked them to
do this. John Link said that the staff asked the school board to do this.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that the Board of County Commissioners designated two
emergency shelters in the County -one at C. W. Stanford Middle School and one at Smith
Middle School. The County Commissioners never formally voted to ask that this high school
also be designated as a community shelter. John Link stated that he took responsibility.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that rainwater collection is nice, but $330,000 is too
significant for rainwater collection. He asked about the day-lighting for $512,000. Steve
4
Scroggs said that this would provide day-lighting in the entire second floor and some of the first
floor. This will reduce the kilowatt usage substantially and make the operating costs go down.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked if this was actual physical structure, or electronic devices. Steve
Scroggs said that there were sensors that turn lights on and off. There are also solar assisted
devices to charge the battery packs for outside lighting and the hot water heater.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked about repairs to Rock Haven Road of $240,000. He
asked if DOT was willing to do some of these repairs. Steve Scroggs said that because the
Town of Carrboro and DOT have not agreed to improvements on Smith Level Road and the
Rock Haven Road intersection, the CUP requires that the school system make the repairs to
Rock Haven Road. It is not currently aState-maintained road. Commissioner Halkiotis said
that this one piece in road improvements is $1 million.
Commissioner Halkiotis made reference to Non-Personnel Start-Up-under Bid
Package and he asked about the $500,000 for this. Steve Scroggs said that some of this is
staff development for new staff, administration hired before the school opens and before the
State funding kicks in, and others.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that he was worried about what was going to be hit when
they start digging on the land. Steve Scroggs said that they have a rock allowance in the
contract.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the possible revised funding stream for High
School #3 and asked if the pay-as-you-go cash from impact fees has already been allocated.
Steve Scroggs said that the $6.1 million was already encumbered. She asked if the school
board had to find another $6.4 million in pay-as-you-go funds because the commissioners were
now using impact fees to pay debt service and Steve Scroggs said yes.
Rod Visser said that the staff was trying to demonstrate, if the Board had chosen
option 2 or 4, what would have been the impact on remaining residual CHCCS pay-as-you-go
funds, assuming that they would have to come up with $2.5 million a year in pay-as-you-go
money for the next three years to make up for the impact fees earmarked for debt.
Commissioner Gordon asked if CHCCS expected to cover $6.4 million and Steve
Scroggs said that in their original budget package, they had alternative findings of $11.1 million
that was designated for renovations of older facilities and other projects, and they dedicated
part of that money to go toward High School #3.
Commissioner Gordon verified that CHCCS has to find another $7.5 million for the
cost overages, but also another $6.4 million more than they thought. The $6.4 million has to be
found from pay-as-you-go funds to replace impact fee money, so the policy that was just
passed by the County Commissioners costs them about $800,000 for the first year.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he appreciated all the work that staff and the school
board has done. He said that there is a limited amount of money and the interlocal agreement
says that, above the money that was allocated, the Board of County Commissioners would not
be required to incur debt. Therefore, the County would not grant them the full amount for the
cost overages. He agreed with John Link in that they should use the Elementary School #10
planning money for the high school and allocate $4.3 million. He said that this should be
thought of as remaining debt capacity. He thinks that there has been a lot of creativity all along
and if given an amount, there could be creativity in figuring out how to make it work. He does
not think it is his job, as a County Commissioner, to tell the school system which things should
be cut. The County Commissioners just allocate the money.
Steve Scroggs said that they would like to be creative, and they need to deal with the
issue of the alternates. He said that they would like to be provided money to do alternate 1.
They do have precedent for using alternates. They do not want to take something out of the
building that is going to cost them in the long run for the next 20-30 years. He would rather
take out a section than to lower the quality of the building. They have an opportunity to make a
statement about the environment.
Lisa Stuckey said that her board would support what Steve Scroggs said. She said
that deleting the auditorium but including the multi-purpose room instead gives them the
opportunity to still have the programs associated with the fine arts. She would also hate to cut
the fields when there are so many issues with obesity and juvenile diabetes. They have thought
about this.
Commissioner Gordon said that if the auditorium were deleted, it would take off $2.3
million. This would leave $5.2 million needed. If the $4.3 million were reallocated, it would still
leave a $900,000 short fall which might mean that athletic facilities would be deleted.. She
pointed out that if the school system is given a 19% cost overrun like was given to Middle
School #3, that would be $5.7 million.
Chair Carey asked for a motion, since it was time to start the work session.
John Link said that appendix 19 is the priority order of the major capital projects that
CHCCS has identified for 2005-06. He said that if it were he, he would look at this list to see if
he could find a way to delay some of these projects to come up with $900,000.
Commissioner Halkiotis proposed that the Board approve up to a certain amount and
then anything beyond that, the two staffs can get together and see what they can come up with.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair Carey to reallocate
$4.3 million from the Elementary School #10 funds.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, Commissioner Gordon (she would like to give them $5.2 million)
The continuation of the meeting of May 3, 2005 was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Moses Carey, Jr.,
Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED 06/23/2005
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
May 5, 2005
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May 5,
2005 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners
Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Steve Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill and S. Sean Borhanian
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Managers Gwen Harvey and Rod Visser, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff
members will be identified appropriately below)
The following members of the County's legislative delegation were present for Item #1:
N.C. House Representatives Joe Hackney, Verla Insko and Bill Faison and State Senator Ellie
Kinniard.
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
The meeting began at 7:40 p.m.
1. Orange Countv Staff Report on the Structure of Boards of Countv Commissioners
Chair Carey said that in February the County Commissioners received a petition from
some residents to consider the issue of the way the Orange County Board of Commissioners
was elected. The Board indicated in February that a report would be brought back on the
options available, the legal environment, etc. The Board also indicated that the County
Commissioners normally hold public hearings on issues of great importance to its residents
before making decisions. A public hearing will be held at the southern end and northern end of
the County on this item after tonight before action is taken.
County Attorney Geof Gledhill made a PowerPoint presentation.
Orange County
Staff Report on the
Structure of Boards of County Commissioners
Introduction
^ January 2005 -Citizen group requested the BOCC alter the method of election to afford fair
representation of county residents
^ BOCC asked the County Manager and staff to prepare a report on the various aspects of
representation for commissioners
Report Topics
^ Legal Framework
^ Election Methods Across North Carolina
^ History of Discussions by BOCC
2
^ Boundaries and Statistics
Legal Framework
^ Board may consist of any odd number of members, not less than 3
^ Term may be for 2 or 4 years
^ Terms of office can be staggered or not
^ Candidates elected by county
^ Reside in district -elected by district plus "at-large" elected by county
^ Reside in district -elected by county plus "at-large" elected by county
^ Reside in district -elected by county
Constitution
The Constitution of the United States of America requires adherence to the principle of
1 person -1 vote
Townships -graph
Precincts -graph
Population -graph
Statistical Summary
^ Orange County population 120,881
^ Chapel Hill population 49,438
^ Carrboro population 17,585
^ Hillsborough population 5,541
^ 1/3 of the registered voters live in the Orange County School District
^ 2/3 of the registered voters live in the Chapel Hill /Carrboro District
^ Orange County increased from 3 to 5 commissioners in 1954
^ 60% of the counties in NC elect 5 commissioners
^ 25% of the counties in NC elect 7 commissioners
Geof Gledhill presented some additional information. He said that if the Board consists
of County Commissioners with two-year terms and four-year terms, all of the members of the
Board must be nominated and elected by the voters of the entire County, with the Board Chair
elected by and from the members of the Board.
There are four modes of election that are authorized. When an electoral district mode is
used, the districts must apportion the Board members so that the number of Commissioners
apportioned in each district, divided by the population of the district, is as nearly equal as
practicable for all of the districts. The four modes of election are:
a) The qualified voters of the entire County nominate all candidates for and elect
all members of the Board. This is the method now used by Orange County.
b) The qualified voters of each district nominate candidates and elect members
who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district; and the qualified
voters of the entire County nominate candidates and elect members
apportioned to the County at large. The citizen petition presented to the Board
3
this year requests that the Board pursue this mode. House Bill 913 also
would, if approved by the voters of the County, create this type of election
system. Chapter 136 of the 1991 Session Laws, which expanded and
redistricted the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, is an example of the
creation of a board structure using this mode.
c) The qualified voters of each district nominate candidates who reside in the
district and the qualified voters of the entire County nominate candidates for
seats apportioned to the County at large, if any; and the qualified voters of the
entire County elect all the members of the Board.
d) The qualified voters of the entire County nominate candidates and elect
members; candidates and members reside in apportioned districts. Chapter
43 of the 1981 Session Laws, involving Randolph County, is an example.
If the district mode of election is chosen, the Board of Commissioners divides the County
into districts according to the apportionment plan adopted and delineates the districts. If a
district mode is chosen, no more than half the Board may be apportioned to the County at-large.
North Carolina General Statute 153A-60 provides that the Board of Commissioners
initiates any alteration of Board structure by resolution. The alteration of Board structure is then
accomplished or not following a referendum conducted by the County Board of Elections.
North Carolina General Statute 153A-61 directs the ballot question that, in effect is, yes
for the altered structure described in the ballot or no for the altered structure. If the referendum
passes, the new structure is put into effect. If the referendum fails, the resolution adopted by
the Board of Commissioners calling for the restructuring and the plan for the altered structure
are both void.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the term "residential district" and Geof Gledhill said
that this is a term used to describe the system whereby the Commissioners reside in districts,
but they are nominated and elected countywide. This is option `d'. Chatham County uses this
option. He said that one of the interesting quirks in the law, is that if the residential district
system is used; there is no way to fix the balance of the districts except through a referendum.
The method by which a Board of Commissioners in North Carolina is elected that is
authorized by North Carolina law, so long as it complies with the "one person, one vote"
principle and does not violate the Voting Rights Act, is inherently political and legally raises only
a political question.
There are several kinds of districts that have been approved by the federal courts. The
North Carolina General Statutes relating to district representation talk only about
"representational equality" or a total population equality. The federal courts have recognized
that "electoral equality" is also acceptable under the "one person, one vote" principle. Under
electoral equality, you can use registered voters as opposed to the total population. The
Durham County Board of Education merger created an election system for the Durham County
Board of Education, which used registered voters as the basis for the districts.
The North Carolina General Assembly has the power, under the North Carolina
Constitution, by legislative fiat, to direct, county by county, the method by which boards of
commissioners are elected, so long as each such method complies with the "one person, one
vote" principle and does not violate the Voting Rights Act.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the letter from 1996 on page 7 of the report
regarding cumulative voting and asked if Geof Gledhill was saying that it was unconstitutional in
North Carolina or if it has just never been talked about. Geof Gledhill said that cumulative
4
voting presents unique questions about the "one person, one vote" principle that have not been
explored as far as he knows in North Carolina. It is not authorized by the general law, but it
could be authorized by the General Assembly if it meets the "one person, one vote" principle
and also the Voting Rights Act.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 69 and the testimony from Lightning
Brown on September 28, 1992, where he talks about "focused voting." He asked if this was
allowed under North Carolina law. Geof Gledhill said that the answer is the same as above - it
is not expressly authorized, but the General Assembly could authorize it if it met the two
requirements.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 24 and the Limited Voting Plan and
asked for an explanation. Geof Gledhill said that it looks to be a variation on the proportional
voting system. He has not looked at this particular system in detail.
Chair Carey verified with Geof Gledhill that if the Board wanted to change the way
County Commissioners were selected, the Board would adopt a resolution and then submit it for
a referendum. He asked if there was any other way and Geof Gledhill said that they could ask
the General Assembly. These are the only ways to change the way in which County
Commissioners are elected in Orange County.
Chair Carey said that Orange County is not a Voting Rights Act county. Geof Gledhill
said that Orange County is subject to the Voting Rights Act, but it is not subject to Justice
Department Free Clearance because there is no history of minorities being unable to be elected
in Orange County. The classification of people protected by the Voting Rights Act has not been
precluded from getting elected. The only groups protected by the Voting Rights Act are
minorities, African Americans, and Spanish-speaking.
Commissioner Gordon said that Representative Faison has a bill before the General
Assembly, and she asked what happens if it passes. Geof Gledhill said that if it passes, there
would be a referendum on changing the structure and the Orange County Board of Elections will
conduct a referendum on changing the structure of the Board of County Commissioners
consistent with that bill. It would create aseven-member Board and create three districts -
District A would consist of Chapel Hill Township, District B would consist of the center part of the
County, and District C would consist of the rural peripheral of the County. There would be four
members from the Chapel Hill district, two members from each of the other districts, and one at-
large member.
Geof Gledhill said that Representative Faison's bill has specific dates for when
everything would take place. It is the kind of plan that the Board could adopt by resolution if it
were inclined to.
Commissioner Halkiotis thanked the staff for the work done on this report that may be
more thorough than the one in the 1990's. He noted some interesting historical facts within the
report. He made reference to an interesting quote that he agrees with that "fairness is a political
judgment." He said that he has an open mind about this, but he objects to the process that was
embarked upon by others.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he appreciated staff and that people brought this to the
Board's attention. He does not appreciate the way it was forced on them. If the Board is
inclined to adopt a resolution, then more information is needed, and he has questions:
Definition of a resident in a district. He would like the staff to provide information from
different jurisdictions that makes this clear.
Does every County Commissioner race in North Carolina have to be partisan (municipal or
school boards)? He wants to know if this is automatic or a choice.
He would like to know about other counties with a comparable population and one
population center and how they elect County Commissioners.
5
• In 1993, several people urged the Board of County Commissioners to read task force
meeting minutes. He would like a copy of these minutes.
• Commissioner Wilhoit spoke about multiple member districts and he would like information
about this.
• Artie Franklin wrote a column about super blocks, and he would like some information
about this.
• There was information provided in 1992, and since then, two of the counties changed their
method of electing commissioners and went from at-large to district. He would like to
know why they did this -this was in Edgecombe and Jackson Counties. It looks like
Northhampton County went from district to at-large. He would like to find out what
counties changed and talk to a County Commissioner that is serving now that they can
talk to about this.
• He wants to make sure that when they look at permutations, that a voter gets to vote for a
majority of the County Commissioners.
• On page 137, Shaping Orange County's Future proposed a method for addressing
positions. He suggested looking at Action Strategy A on page 137.
Chair Carey said that the Board should listen to the residents on this matter, in addition
to getting all of the answers to the questions that Commissioner Jacobs raised. He shared
three possible dates in August to have a public hearing on this matter on both ends of the
County and to hear the answers to the questions.
Commissioner Jacobs asked who would sift through all of the information - a group of
citizens or the Board. Shaping Orange County's Future suggested setting up a task force.
Commissioner Foushee said that it is important to get answers to the questions from
Commissioner Jacobs. She agreed about holding the public hearings as soon as possible. She
does not think it is necessary to create a task force prior to the public hearings.
Chair Carey said that he would like to proceed after the public hearing, but he also thinks
that creating another task force to study this further and make recommendations is a step that
he hopes the Board will not take. He thinks the decision about how to elect County
Commissioners is going to be a political decision that the Board will have to make. He has told
the public that the Board will take an action on this one way or another.
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
approve the scheduling of public hearings on Wednesday, August 24th and Wednesday, August
31St
UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the Chair and the Clerk look at creating some
work sessions in September or October to sift through the information. Chair Carey and
Commissioner Halkiotis agreed with this.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to see more than one method proposed.
There are other ways to have district representation and not to increase the board to seven
commissioners. She would like to see variations with five commissioners.
Commissioner Jacobs said that Evelyn Cecil put together some historical information
that goes back to 1938. Since that time, there have been 19 County Commissioners from
Chapel Hill Township, 18 County Commissioners from the other townships, and 3 County
Commissioners who moved from Chapel Hill Township to other townships.
2. Recommendations for Reallocation of $12.8 Million in Programmed Debt
John Link said that this item is a process for the Board to affirm how to proceed with
allocating funds remaining of the $12.8 million initially designated for the CHCCS Elementary
6
School #10. The Board has already appropriated $3.5 million for the OCS Middle School #3
and $4.3 million for the CHCCS High School #3. The staff recommendation was for the Board
to consider the remaining appropriations for the projects as listed in the abstract.
Commissioner Jacobs said that the only change he would make is to try and find more
money for conservation easements. He said that Environment and Resource Conservation
Director Dave Stancil sent him an email that someone from the federal government wants to
come and do an event with Orange County because it has reached $10 million that they have
given North Carolina in conservation easements since the early 80's. He believes that Orange
County has received $2 million just in the last few years. Orange County has the model
program, and he is concerned that they will run out of money in the next two-year period.
Budget Director Donna Dean said that they have talked about moving some of the Lands
Legacy money into conservation easements. Commissioner Jacobs said that he is comfortable
with not changing this as long as there is some general agreement that there will be sufficient
money to keep this program viable.
Commissioner Gordon said that she is not ready to decide this yet because she does not
know the other options. She thought that when the Board approved the conservation
easements, it agreed to look over and evaluate the criteria.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion is very valuable. He
thinks that the rural community has benefited immensely from the conservation easements. He
agrees with Commissioner Jacobs in principle. He challenged the Manager and staff to figure
out where to find funding for this. He asked the Manager to give the Board an update at the
next meeting on the issue with Mebane and the water lines and possible reimbursement for
future tap-ons, and the issue with Duke Power and the cost for the OCS to get power to the
middle school site and future tap-ons there also.
Chair Carey agreed with Commissioner Jacobs in principle also.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
appropriate the remaining $5 million as follows:
OCS Middle School #3/West Ten Soccer Complex (water lines) - $500,000
New Senior Centers - $2,000,000
New Animal Services Building (land and design) - $700,000
New County Campus (land and master site plan) - $1,800,000
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Gordon said that she voted yes because the Board has already allocated
money to the high school, but she thinks that it is outrageously unfair that CHCCS is allocated
only $4.3 million for High School #3.
3. Sanitation Division Organizational Assessment
Rod Visser said that the staff was asked to look at the organizational assessment for
sanitation. The County has solid waste functions taking place in two different departments -
Solid Waste and Public Works. The staff looked at whether there were any efficiencies that
could be achieved by considering whether some or all of the functions could be combined into
one department instead of two departments. The recommendation is that the functions and
responsibilities of the sanitation division of the Public Works department be transferred to the
Solid Waste department.
Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson said that Public Works, Solid Waste, Personnel, and
the Budget departments have been assessing the possibility of consolidating the solid waste
services. They have not looked at policies and work schedules, but the focus has been on
personnel, equipment, and the impacts on the different departments. There are some budget
issues. There are some positive impacts of such a reorganization, which are listed in the
abstract. The estimated financial impact is $82,000. The staff believes that the transition could
be seamless.
Rod Visser said that one impact is that the public would not have to worry about who to
call for a particular function or need because everything would be addressed in the same
department.
Personnel Director Elaine Holmes said that 16 positions in the Public Works sanitation
division would transfer to the Solid Waste department. This is simply a reassignment of
positions and employees. Seven of the positions were originally set up as time-limited, and they
have been extended from year to year. The staff is recommending that with this transition that
these positions be made permanent. She said that the hours of the convenience centers have
increased, but the number of employees has stayed the same. Several of the centers were
originally staffed with only one operator at a time, and now they need to be staffed with two
operators in order to help the citizens. To meet this need, the time-limited part-time employees
have been working additional hours. Part of the proposal is that these two part-time positions
become full time. The estimated cost of this is $28,500. This is not included in the $82,000.
The staff is also recommending that the Solid Waste department conduct a review of the
workload, staffing, and organization during the first year after the transition to assess whether
there are opportunities to reduce workload and whether the existing staff could be realigned to
meet the needs.
Commissioner Halkiotis said someone from Gayle Wilson's office faxed him a report on
scavenging in Chatham County. He then got a phone call from someone who said that he
should disregard the fax. He made reference to the NC 57 convenience center and said that
this center needs help because they are constantly running back and forth to make sure that
citizens are putting things in the right place. The workers at this center have developed
relationships with the citizens, and they allow scavenging. He asked if there was going to be a
change in philosophy once this transition is made. If there is, he wants to know about it now,
because he is seeing auser-friendly system right now.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this was on the Solid Waste Advisory Board agenda and
a recommendation is coming.
Rod Visser said that the citizens would continue to be treated in a first class way by the
employees. Regarding scavenging, there is not awell-established, consistent policy that is well
understood by employees and by the public. They have asked the Solid Waste Advisory Board
to look at some draft ideas about a scavenging policy.
Gayle Wilson said that they provide their current services at a high rate of satisfaction
and responsiveness to the public. He sees this carrying over with the transition.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County would have to pay rent to the enterprise fund
for the space that will be used. Rod Visser said that they would try to consider the impacts of
the solid waste fund if, to any extent, it would be underwriting this operation. There is a specific
transfer from the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to the General Fund every year that has the
enterprise fund reimbursing the County for the support services it receives. They would make
sure that the transfer from the Solid Waste department would reflect any net benefits that flow
the other way.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the timing on the new Solid Waste building and
Gayle Wilson said that there is a kick-off meeting with the architect on May 16~'. It would
probably not go out to bid until the winter.
Purchasing and Central Services Director Pam Jones said that the County has to moved
from the site by December 2006.
Gayle Wilson said that they have proposed two construction-type office trailers and to
prepare a gravel parking area for the equipment. It should not be a significant investment.
John Link said that the question is if everything will be ready for everyone to move into
the new building at the time that Chapel Hill vacates their entire location.
8
Geof Gledhill said that the University has offered to extend the lease for Chapel Hill.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a good idea, but this is an example of where he
has a problem with how the County does a budget. He is going to vote not to do it this fiscal
year. He is endorsing it in principle. He thinks it would save trouble to wait until the new
building is ready. He suggested putting the $82,000 towards childcare or Medicaid, which the
legislature just proposed to cut drastically.
Chair Carey asked if it would be less expensive to wait until the new building is ready to
move. Gayle Wilson estimated that it would save about $20-25,000 to not use the interim
buildings.
John Link said that he would like this to be voted upon unanimously, and to wait three
weeks to see how this fits into the entire budget process.
Chair Carey suggested a vote in principle.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
adopt this change in principle and increase the salaries of the staff to make them permanent,
full-time.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday issue and
said that there are times when someone has a particular workday that is significant to them,
then they can arrange the schedule so that someone else works. This came up on the Martin
Luther King, Jr. holiday. He asked Elaine Holmes to work on this so that people can trade hours
so that there is no religious, philosophical, or cultural conflict. This usually comes up with EMS,
the Sheriffs office, and Solid Waste.
Public Works Director Wilbert McAdoo said that they do that now in Public Works.
Gayle Wilson said that he is not aware of this being a problem, but he assured the
County Commissioners that if there is a hint about someone wanting off for a particular holiday
that they feel strongly about, then he will accommodate them.
Elaine Holmes will follow up on this.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked about the convenience centers being closed on
Wednesdays and asked about the impact of having them be open on Wednesdays.
4. Legal Advertisement for May 23, 2005 Quarterly Public Hearing
Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this item was on Tuesday night's agenda, and
there was some clarification requested by the County Commissioners. The only public hearing
item that is being scheduled for the May 23`d QPH is the Orange County Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance. This will be meeting a legal requirement. The non-public hearing item is
regarding the Rural Enterprises Project, and the ad will indicate that it is for discussion purposes
only and not a change in zoning. The purpose of the Rural Enterprises Project is to diversify the
farm economy and provide some options in the rural areas of the County for people to move
past the typical farm uses to provide more income.
The majority of the changes to the advertisement is on the gray sheet and has to do with
the Orange County Land Use Element Update and the Zoning Text Amendments. Attachment 1
shows that this will be a discussion item on what the land use plan is and some of the growth
issues. The advertisement will just mention the six options.
Commissioner Gordon said that since the County Commissioners just got this
information tonight, she and Craig Benedict worked out some wording on the Rural Enterprises
Project. She read the language, which was added to the first paragraph as follows: "The uses
proposed range from small-scale farm operations and agri-tourism to larger scale agricultural
processing facilities, such as canneries and meat packaging." For the third paragraph, the
second sentence will read, "The full scale agenda package for this item is part of the agenda
9
materials from the Board's February 28, 2005 work session and can be found on the County's
website.
The Board agreed with the language changes.
John Link made reference to page 4 and residential density, and said that it would be a
good idea to use the same measure all the way through in terms of acreage or square feet for
lot size. Specifically, #2 should be changed to acreage as opposed to square footage.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
approve the proposed May 23, 2005 Quarterly Public Hearing legal advertisement with the
changes as proposed by Commissioner Gordon.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the memo regarding the Comprehensive Plan (blue
sheet). Craig Benedict said that at the Planning Board meeting last night, there was discussion
about the Rural Character and Farmland Preservation subcommittee. There was discussion
amongst the members of the Planning Board regarding what the Planning Board reviews as far
as comprehensive plan elements beyond land use and who does what (Agricultural
Preservation Board, ERCD, and Planning Board). They were looking for some direction from
the Board of County Commissioners. He made reference to the memo on the second page
from him that explains that on April 21St, the staff developed a process of how to identify the
elements, which the stakeholders are, and how to get it done. He believes that the Planning
Board needs more time to absorb this process.
Chair Carey asked for another copy of the April 21St memo.
Commissioner Jacobs asked that the joint meeting be coordinated with the Clerk.
With no further items to discuss, a motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs,
seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 9:20. p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board