September 8, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting
»
Item 1 » - 1. Opening of Meeting a. Invocation a. Invocation b. Pledge of Allegiance b. Pledge of Allegiance c. Employee Recognition c. Employee Recognition
Item 1 »
1. Opening of Meetinga. Invocation
a. Invocation
b. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Pledge of Allegiance
c. Employee Recognition
c. Employee Recognition
»
Public Hearings - Amendment to PUD Permit 000001
This is a request to amend a portion of the existing PUD located in the vicinity of the intersection of Tom Short and Rea Rds. Anytime a specific plan of development is proposed for any portion of the PUD a review by the Planning Board and an approval by the Board of County Commissioners is required under the Union County Development Ordinance. In this case, a plan of development was previously approved which will allow the construction of a 75,000 square foot, 3 story office building on this specific portion of the PUD. Due to changing market conditions this development was not realized and this application seeks to change the approved plans to a 15,000 square foot indoor swim training facility.
The existing parcel of land is approximately 9.05 acres. This development will take place on approximately two acres of this property potentially allowing further development of the remaining 7.05 acres. The proposed use of an indoor swim training facility is consistent with allowed uses inside the B-2 zoning district, which this portion of the PUD is required to adhere to. The proposed building is approximately 15,000 square feet and lies toward the rear of the property. It is served by a parking lot that is proposed to contain 62 parking spaces which exceeds the minimum required of 38. When considering a PUD request it is important to consider the entire PUD and not just the specific site. In this case the entire PUD includes the commercial area where Kohls is located, as well as portions of Hunter Oaks, which is a single family neighborhood. The building designs and materials should be consistent in the PUD. The proposed building uses mostly brick with some variation in color and design. This is fairly consistent with the existing commercial buildings within the PUD.
None
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct Public Hearing
Public Hearings
Amendment to PUD Permit 000001 This is a request to amend a portion of the existing PUD located in the vicinity of the intersection of Tom Short and Rea Rds. Anytime a specific plan of development is proposed for any portion of the PUD a review by the Planning Board and an approval by the Board of County Commissioners is required under the Union County Development Ordinance. In this case, a plan of development was previously approved which will allow the construction of a 75,000 square foot, 3 story office building on this specific portion of the PUD. Due to changing market conditions this development was not realized and this application seeks to change the approved plans to a 15,000 square foot indoor swim training facility.
The existing parcel of land is approximately 9.05 acres. This development will take place on approximately two acres of this property potentially allowing further development of the remaining 7.05 acres. The proposed use of an indoor swim training facility is consistent with allowed uses inside the B-2 zoning district, which this portion of the PUD is required to adhere to. The proposed building is approximately 15,000 square feet and lies toward the rear of the property. It is served by a parking lot that is proposed to contain 62 parking spaces which exceeds the minimum required of 38. When considering a PUD request it is important to consider the entire PUD and not just the specific site. In this case the entire PUD includes the commercial area where Kohls is located, as well as portions of Hunter Oaks, which is a single family neighborhood. The building designs and materials should be consistent in the PUD. The proposed building uses mostly brick with some variation in color and design. This is fairly consistent with the existing commercial buildings within the PUD.
None
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct Public Hearing
»
Item 2 - 2. Informal Comments
Item 2
2. Informal Comments
»
Item 3 - 3. Additions, Deletions, and/or Adoption of Agenda
Item 3
3. Additions, Deletions, and/or Adoption of Agenda
»
Consent Agenda » - 4. Consent Agenda a. Contracts and Purchase Orders Over $100,000 a. Contracts and Purchase Orders Over $100,000 b. Tax Administrator b. Tax Administrator c. Budget c. Budget d. Minutes d. Minutes e. Information Only: e. Information Only:
Consent Agenda »
4. Consent Agendaa. Contracts and Purchase Orders Over $100,000
a. Contracts and Purchase Orders Over $100,000
b. Tax Administrator
b. Tax Administrator
c. Budget
c. Budget
d. Minutes
d. Minutes
e. Information Only:
e. Information Only:
»
Old Business - 21. Board of Education Funding Requests
On July 8, 2015, Union County received a request from the BOE to provide $1.2 million in additional capital funding to meet emerging needs that were not specifically identified during the budget process. The Board of Commissioners identified various options and presented them to the BOE for consideration. On August 5, 2015, the County Manager received a request from Dr. Ellis requesting a transfer of $267,500 from the Benton Heights Elementary School of the Arts renovation project and the Internet Protocol platform project appropriated in FY2016. The communication from Dr. Ellis also requested that the BOCC reallocate the remaining appropriated funds from the Benton Heights and IP protocol projects to emerging projects currently identified. The available funds for these two projects total $3,198,873.
On August 7, 2015, the County Manager confirmed receipt of the request and indicated that it would be placed on the BOCC meeting of August 17. At that time the County Manager also requested that a member of the BOE or staff be present to answer any questions from the BOCC on the request. On August 10 BOE Chairman Collins responded to Chairman Helms that no one would be in attendance as the request was well documented and no questions had been received to date. On August 11, the BOCC Chairman provided a list of questions to the BOE on the matter
and indicated that other Commissioners may have additional question. He also noted the need for public dialogue in support of transparency and a full explanation of need.
In further correspondence the integrity of the process to allow transfers has been questioned. To eliminate any further confusion by the Board of Education and its staff this action will clarify the expectations of the Board of County Commissioners and the process that will be followed.
ACTION REQUESTED:
(i) Adopt amendment to FY15-16 Budget Ordinance to delete Section XXIV(B); and
(ii) Adopt policy to require presentation by a member of the Board of Education.
Old Business
21. Board of Education Funding Requests On July 8, 2015, Union County received a request from the BOE to provide $1.2 million in additional capital funding to meet emerging needs that were not specifically identified during the budget process. The Board of Commissioners identified various options and presented them to the BOE for consideration. On August 5, 2015, the County Manager received a request from Dr. Ellis requesting a transfer of $267,500 from the Benton Heights Elementary School of the Arts renovation project and the Internet Protocol platform project appropriated in FY2016. The communication from Dr. Ellis also requested that the BOCC reallocate the remaining appropriated funds from the Benton Heights and IP protocol projects to emerging projects currently identified. The available funds for these two projects total $3,198,873.
On August 7, 2015, the County Manager confirmed receipt of the request and indicated that it would be placed on the BOCC meeting of August 17. At that time the County Manager also requested that a member of the BOE or staff be present to answer any questions from the BOCC on the request. On August 10 BOE Chairman Collins responded to Chairman Helms that no one would be in attendance as the request was well documented and no questions had been received to date. On August 11, the BOCC Chairman provided a list of questions to the BOE on the matter
and indicated that other Commissioners may have additional question. He also noted the need for public dialogue in support of transparency and a full explanation of need.
In further correspondence the integrity of the process to allow transfers has been questioned. To eliminate any further confusion by the Board of Education and its staff this action will clarify the expectations of the Board of County Commissioners and the process that will be followed.
ACTION REQUESTED:
(i) Adopt amendment to FY15-16 Budget Ordinance to delete Section XXIV(B); and
(ii) Adopt policy to require presentation by a member of the Board of Education.
»
New Business - 22. Budget Transfer from the Register of Deeds to Growth Management
The County, in accordance with North Carolina General Statues §161-11.3, maintains an Automation and Preservation Fund. This fund is funded through 10% of the fees collected by the Register of Deeds Office. The expressed purpose of this fund is to fund computer or imaging technology and the needs associated with the preservation and storage of records in the office of the register of deeds.
The estimated revenue for the Automation Enhancement fund for FY 2016 is $106,000. This funding is used to partially fund the current contract with Logan Systems. The contract provides for, “the management of the permanent records maintained by the Register of Deeds.” The remaining funding, of about $122,000 comes from the General Fund. The total cost of the standard Logan agreement is about $19,000 a month or $228,000 annually.
The funding of the agreement with Logan Systems, based on the County’s Legal Department’s interpretation (see attached) of the NCGS §161-11.3, is an allowable use of those funds.
During the budget process, the County Manager recommended adding an additional $20,000 annually to the Logan agreement to allow the Register of Deeds to have an ongoing records restoration project. This is in addition to the $177,000 provided in FY 2015 for redaction. The goal was to provide a continuing funding source for restoration of older records.
Unfortunately, the funding from the Automation Fund was double counted, meaning that the General Fund should have been reduced by the Automation Fund amount. Because of the overfunding, the total budget for FY 2016, before transfers, is $354,000 or $106,000 more than the estimated need. The transfer recommended reduces the Register of Deeds budget by $100,000 of the double counted amount, leaving the Register of Deeds about $26,000 to fund restoration projects.
The total estimated restoration project was $79,200; the $26,000 annually is estimated to get the project done in about three years. When combined with the redaction project, this would be a total of $255,000 spent on restoration and special projects in the Register of Deeds office from FY 2015 to FY 2018.
The transfer of the double counted funding does not delay or defund this plan and none of the funding has been encumbered at this point.
Separately, during the last few months staff has been working through the procurement process to acquire new permitting and inspections software. The initial $50,000 funding for the acquisition of the software was included in the adopted budget. The recommended vendor, which will be brought back as a contract at a future meeting, provided two cost proposals. The first option, which is a county hosted option cost $131,914 for implementation, with an annual payment of $15,414 plus CPI. The second option, which is vendor hosted cost $75,914 for implementation, but $34,414 annually plus CPI. An analysis of the funding structures and other non-financial concerns was done and based on the analysis staff will be recommending the county hosted option. In the fifth year of the program, the county hosted option becomes the more cost effective.
It is staff’s recommendation that the unintended $100,000 overfunding in the Register of Deeds budget be transferred to Growth Management to fund the additional cost of the software. Any remaining funds following implementation would be transferred to the General Fund contingency.
East Regional Wastewater Transmission System User Rates
In 1978, the County entered into a 30-year agreement with three other entities to construct a wastewater transmission system and provide wastewater transmission and treatment services for these three “large users” and the County’s own retail customers located in the eastern part of the County. Two of the large users are municipalities (the Town of Wingate & the Town of Marshville) and the third is a private industrial customer (currently known as Pilgrim’s). The terms of the 1978 agreement required each entity to repay their proportionate share of the cost of infrastructure over the 30-year period through a monthly fixed charge. This fixed charge was in addition to a volumetric charge determined by the amount of wastewater transmitted. Although the agreement allocated each entity certain capacities within the system, both the fixed and volumetric charges were determined based on each entity’s percent of actual wastewater flow. The 1978 agreements expired in 2008.
Over the past several years, County staff has attempted to work jointly with the two municipalities to develop a new wastewater agreement. A draft agreement was in its final stages when Marshville’s Town Manager left employment with the Town. Since that time, negotiations with the Town of Marshville have not progressed. The County continued to move forward with the Town of Wingate & has recently executed a new contract with them. This new agreement also has a fixed charge component; however, charges are based on the amount of allocated capacity rather than actual flow. The same agreement terms have been offered to the Town of Marshville over a year ago, but the Town has not accepted or attempted to negotiate any further.
Since 2008, the County has continued to charge all three large users based on the terms of the expired contract. The Town of Marshville was notified in November 2014 and again in June 2015 that if we did not have an executed agreement in place by July 2015 we would recommend to the BoCC the establishment of a rate based on the framework of the new agreement with Wingate. This proposed rate reflects that framework.
Until such time that the County reaches an agreement with the Town of Marshville, County staff proposes to establish a gallonage rate for the Town. The proposed FY2016 rate of $3.20 per one thousand gallons is based on the terms of the new agreement with Wingate; however, the fixed charge component has been converted to a rate per thousand. Staff recommends the same rate of $3.20 per one thousand gallons also apply to Pilgrim’s. The proposed effective date for this rate for both entities is September 1, 2015.
N/A
ACTION REQUESTED:
1) Approve a rate of $3.20 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow for large users of the East Regional Wastewater Transmission System effective September 1, 2015.
2) Authorize the Board’s liaison to the Town of Marshville, Stony Rushing to schedule a meeting with the Mayor of Marshville and any relevant staff to have discussions regarding the need for an executed agreement with the Town of Marshville regarding the East Regional Wastewater Transmission System.
New Business
22. Budget Transfer from the Register of Deeds to Growth Management The County, in accordance with North Carolina General Statues §161-11.3, maintains an Automation and Preservation Fund. This fund is funded through 10% of the fees collected by the Register of Deeds Office. The expressed purpose of this fund is to fund computer or imaging technology and the needs associated with the preservation and storage of records in the office of the register of deeds.
The estimated revenue for the Automation Enhancement fund for FY 2016 is $106,000. This funding is used to partially fund the current contract with Logan Systems. The contract provides for, “the management of the permanent records maintained by the Register of Deeds.” The remaining funding, of about $122,000 comes from the General Fund. The total cost of the standard Logan agreement is about $19,000 a month or $228,000 annually.
The funding of the agreement with Logan Systems, based on the County’s Legal Department’s interpretation (see attached) of the NCGS §161-11.3, is an allowable use of those funds.
During the budget process, the County Manager recommended adding an additional $20,000 annually to the Logan agreement to allow the Register of Deeds to have an ongoing records restoration project. This is in addition to the $177,000 provided in FY 2015 for redaction. The goal was to provide a continuing funding source for restoration of older records.
Unfortunately, the funding from the Automation Fund was double counted, meaning that the General Fund should have been reduced by the Automation Fund amount. Because of the overfunding, the total budget for FY 2016, before transfers, is $354,000 or $106,000 more than the estimated need. The transfer recommended reduces the Register of Deeds budget by $100,000 of the double counted amount, leaving the Register of Deeds about $26,000 to fund restoration projects.
The total estimated restoration project was $79,200; the $26,000 annually is estimated to get the project done in about three years. When combined with the redaction project, this would be a total of $255,000 spent on restoration and special projects in the Register of Deeds office from FY 2015 to FY 2018.
The transfer of the double counted funding does not delay or defund this plan and none of the funding has been encumbered at this point.
Separately, during the last few months staff has been working through the procurement process to acquire new permitting and inspections software. The initial $50,000 funding for the acquisition of the software was included in the adopted budget. The recommended vendor, which will be brought back as a contract at a future meeting, provided two cost proposals. The first option, which is a county hosted option cost $131,914 for implementation, with an annual payment of $15,414 plus CPI. The second option, which is vendor hosted cost $75,914 for implementation, but $34,414 annually plus CPI. An analysis of the funding structures and other non-financial concerns was done and based on the analysis staff will be recommending the county hosted option. In the fifth year of the program, the county hosted option becomes the more cost effective.
It is staff’s recommendation that the unintended $100,000 overfunding in the Register of Deeds budget be transferred to Growth Management to fund the additional cost of the software. Any remaining funds following implementation would be transferred to the General Fund contingency.
East Regional Wastewater Transmission System User Rates
In 1978, the County entered into a 30-year agreement with three other entities to construct a wastewater transmission system and provide wastewater transmission and treatment services for these three “large users” and the County’s own retail customers located in the eastern part of the County. Two of the large users are municipalities (the Town of Wingate & the Town of Marshville) and the third is a private industrial customer (currently known as Pilgrim’s). The terms of the 1978 agreement required each entity to repay their proportionate share of the cost of infrastructure over the 30-year period through a monthly fixed charge. This fixed charge was in addition to a volumetric charge determined by the amount of wastewater transmitted. Although the agreement allocated each entity certain capacities within the system, both the fixed and volumetric charges were determined based on each entity’s percent of actual wastewater flow. The 1978 agreements expired in 2008.
Over the past several years, County staff has attempted to work jointly with the two municipalities to develop a new wastewater agreement. A draft agreement was in its final stages when Marshville’s Town Manager left employment with the Town. Since that time, negotiations with the Town of Marshville have not progressed. The County continued to move forward with the Town of Wingate & has recently executed a new contract with them. This new agreement also has a fixed charge component; however, charges are based on the amount of allocated capacity rather than actual flow. The same agreement terms have been offered to the Town of Marshville over a year ago, but the Town has not accepted or attempted to negotiate any further.
Since 2008, the County has continued to charge all three large users based on the terms of the expired contract. The Town of Marshville was notified in November 2014 and again in June 2015 that if we did not have an executed agreement in place by July 2015 we would recommend to the BoCC the establishment of a rate based on the framework of the new agreement with Wingate. This proposed rate reflects that framework.
Until such time that the County reaches an agreement with the Town of Marshville, County staff proposes to establish a gallonage rate for the Town. The proposed FY2016 rate of $3.20 per one thousand gallons is based on the terms of the new agreement with Wingate; however, the fixed charge component has been converted to a rate per thousand. Staff recommends the same rate of $3.20 per one thousand gallons also apply to Pilgrim’s. The proposed effective date for this rate for both entities is September 1, 2015.
N/A
ACTION REQUESTED:
1) Approve a rate of $3.20 per 1,000 gallons of wastewater flow for large users of the East Regional Wastewater Transmission System effective September 1, 2015.
2) Authorize the Board’s liaison to the Town of Marshville, Stony Rushing to schedule a meeting with the Mayor of Marshville and any relevant staff to have discussions regarding the need for an executed agreement with the Town of Marshville regarding the East Regional Wastewater Transmission System.