THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
Monday,
January 12, 2004
ACTION MINUTES--DRAFT
Place: Commissioners’
Room, second floor, Durham County Government Administrative Complex, 200 E.
Main Street, Durham, NC
Present: Chairman Ellen
W. Reckhow, Vice-Chairman Joe W. Bowser (arrived at 5:45 p.m.), and
Commissioners Philip R. Cousin Jr., Becky M. Heron (arrived at 5:15 p.m.), and
Mary D. Jacobs
Absent: None
Presider: Chairman
Reckhow
Closed
Session
5:00 P.M.
Commissioner Cousin moved, seconded by
Commissioner Jacobs, to adjourn to closed session to consider the performance
of a public officer, to preserve the
attorney-client privilege, and to consult with an attorney regarding Durham
Land Owners Association, et al. v. County of Durham, 03 CVS 5500, pursuant
to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) & (6).
The motion carried with the following vote:
Ayes:Cousin, Jacobs, and Reckhow
Noes:None
Absent:Bowser and Heron (arrived late)
_________________________
7:00 P.M.
Regular Session
Opening of Regular Session
Chairman Reckhow welcomed everyone
to the January 12, 2003 Regular Session of the Durham Board of County
Commissioners. She asked that everyone
in attendance rise and join the County Commissioners for the recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Board Action Required as a Result of the Closed Session
Chairman Reckhow announced that
the County Commissioners appraised the County Manager’s job performance (from
November 2002 through November 2003).
Commissioner
Heron moved, seconded by Commissioner Cousin, to increase the County Manager’s
annual salary to $142,000.
The motion
carried unanimously.
Announcement
Chairman Reckhow announced the
second session of the Durham City-County Neighborhood College. The upcoming series of classes will be held
for ten weeks (February through April).
Various topics to be discussed include: City
and County services, community development, emergency services, health and
human services, the City and County budget processes, and environmental services. Classes will be held on Thursday
nights (6:00–9:00 p.m.) and one Saturday morning.
Agenda Adjustments
- Commissioner Jacobs added a brief discussion
about reviewing the Board’s Rules of Procedure and Ethics Policy.
- Commissioner Cousin added a Closed Session to
the end of the meeting.
Minutes
Commissioner
Heron moved, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve as submitted the
following Minutes of the Board:
November
10, 2003 BOCC Training (Local Management Entity)
November
24, 2003 BOCC/Durham Public Schools
December
1, 2003 Worksession
December
8, 2003 Regular Session
The motion
carried unanimously.
DSS Best Practice Award and
Presentation of DSS Annual Report
Chairman Reckhow commended Mr.
Hudgins, DSS, and IT staff, especially for being recognized for efficiency
during difficult economic times.
Commissioner Heron congratulated
DSS on its accomplishments. She
strongly encouraged Mr. Hudgins to place Child Support as a top priority for
DSS.
Consent
Agenda
Commissioner
Jacobs moved, seconded by Commissioner Cousin, to approve the following consent
agenda items:
*b.Budget Ordinance Amendment No.
04BCC000040—Additional Revenue for Social Services From the Federal Adoption
Incentive Program (approve the budget ordinance amendment as presented);
c.(removed);
d.Ten-Year
Plan to End Homelessness (take action to participate in a joint press
conference with the City, appoint representatives to serve on the Steering
Committee, and appoint staff members from DSS and The Durham Center to
participate in the planning process);
*f.Resolution Opposing Location of Outlying
Landing Field in Washington and Beaufort Counties (approve the requested
resolution); and
*g.Capital Project Ordinance Amendment
No. 04CPA000006—Head Start/YMCA Building Purchase & Renovation (approve the
capital project ordinance amendment ($568,500) for FY 2003-04 purchase and
renovation of the former YMCA Childcare Center).
The motion
carried unanimously.
*Documents related to these items
follow:
Consent Agenda Item No. b. Budget Ordinance Amendment No.
04BCC000040—Additional Revenue for Social Services From the Federal Adoption
Incentive Program.
The budget ordinance amendment
follows:
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FY 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Amendment No. 04BCC000040
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF DURHAM COUNTY that
the
FY 2003-04 Budget Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect budget adjustments.
Revenue:
Category Current Increase/Decrease Revised
Budget Budget
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures:
Activity
GENERAL FUND
Human Services
$357,946,339 $40,886 $357,987,225
All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 12th day of January, 2004.
(Budget
Ordinance Amendment recorded in Ordinance Book _____, page _____.)
_________________________
Consent Agenda Item No. f.
Resolution Opposing Location of Outlying Landing Field in Washington and
Beaufort Counties (approve the requested resolution).
The resolution follows:
Resolution in Opposition to the Location of an
Outlying Landing Field for F/A-18e/F in Perquimans, Bertie, Washington, and
Hyde Counties
WHEREAS, the Navy is looking at sites for a new remote airfield where
jets based primarily at Oceana Naval Air Station and Chambers Field at Norfolk
Naval Station at Virginia Beach can practice carrier-landing techniques in
northeastern North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, the aircraft have used Fentress Naval Auxiliary Landing
Field in southern Chesapeake for years; and
WHEREAS, new pilots must make about 400 practice landings before
heading out to an aircraft carrier; and
WHEREAS, veteran pilots must also re-qualify for carrier landing by making
practice runs before deployments; and
WHEREAS, these touch-and-go operations are projected to be conducted
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year; and
WHEREAS, the Navy has been besieged with complaints about jet noise
at Fentress for more than two years after 10 squadrons of F/A-18 Hornets were
relocated to Oceana; and
WHEREAS, a class-action lawsuit has been filed seeking compensation
for reduced property values because of the noise at the Fentress and Oceana
fields; and
WHEREAS, suburban growth has surrounded the once-remote Fentress
outlying field producing an increasing number of complaints, particularly from
nighttime flying that frequently lasts until early morning; and
WHEREAS, the Navy has also contributed to the problems at Fentress by
failing to secure adequate buffers around the facility for expanding
operations; and
WHEREAS, Atlantic Fleet officials have contracted with Ecology and
Environmental Inc. of Buffalo, NY to conduct a study to determine the best
location for such a field and to recommend a potential site; and
WHEREAS, for years there have also been numerous noise complaints at
Bogue Banks OLF in Carteret County, NC and Oak Grove OLF in Jones County, NC;
and
WHEREAS, northeastern North Carolina would not see benefits in the
sites being considered for the outlying landing field in the area from the
F/A-18E/F deployment from either Oceana Naval Air Station at Virginia Beach or
the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station at Havelock; and
WHEREAS, it has been reported that noise studies indicate that the
Super Hornet is more than twice as loud as the model the Navy now flies; and
WHEREAS, F/A-18E/F practicing touch-and-go landings, even at an
outlying landing field that is over 50,000 acres in size, will be off the base
in a matter of seconds; and
WHEREAS, the current military operations have already restricted
airspace in this region to the point that general aviation airports are
negatively impacted; and
WHEREAS, the Navy has not clearly illustrated that the outlying
landing field will contribute positively to the Region's economic growth
without negatively impacting our environment and existing economies; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts from such a facility will be
disastrous to the entire northeast region:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Durham County Board of
Commissioners opposes locating a new outlying landing field in Bertie,
Perquimans, Hyde, and Washington Counties.
Adopted this 12th day of January, 2004.
/s/
Ellen W. Reckhow
Chairman, Durham County Commissioners
_________________________
Consent Agenda Item No. g. Capital
Project Ordinance Amendment
No. 04CPA000006—Head Start/YMCA Building Purchase & Renovation (approve the
capital project ordinance amendment [$568,500] for FY 2003-04 purchase and
renovation of the former YMCA Childcare Center).
The capital project ordinance
amendment follows:
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FY 2003-04 Capital Project Ordinance
Amendment No. 04CPA000006
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF DURHAM COUNTY that
the
FY 2003-04 Capital Project Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect budget
adjustments for the Head Start/YMCA Building Project.
Head Start/YMCA Building Project
Current Increase Decrease Revised
Budget Budget
Expenditures
Head Start/YMCA
Building Project $ -0- $568,500 $568,500
All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 12th day of January, 2004.
(Capital Projects Ordinance Amendment recorded in Ordinance
Book _____, page _____.)
Consent Agenda Items Removed for Discussion
Consent Agenda Item No. a. Budget
Ordinance Amendment No. 04BCC000039—Public Health—Recognize Additional New
Revenue for the Nutrition Division in the Amount of $28,323 to Establish a
Full-Time Nutritionist II Position and Operational Expenses for Six Months
(approve the budget ordinance amendment to recognize funds for $28,323 from the
Durham’s Partnership for Children for the Nutritionist position, continuation
of which is contingent upon continued grant funding).
Commissioner Heron removed the
above-mentioned consent agenda item to suggest that the Public Health
Department consider assigning a Nutritionist to attend community PAC meetings
to share information regarding good nutrition.
Ms. Rebecca Freeman, Nutrition
Director, remarked that the revenue in Budget Ordinance Amendment No.
04BCC000039 is targeted for a specific purpose. Public Health will explore other programs in an attempt to locate
funding for a Nutritionist to attend PAC meetings and provide educational
information.
Commissioner
Heron moved, seconded by Vice-Chairman Bowser, to approve Budget Ordinance
Amendment
No. 04BCC000039—Public Health—Recognize Additional New Revenue for the
Nutrition Division in the Amount of $28,323 to Establish a Full-Time
Nutritionist II Position and Operational Expenses for Six Months (approve the
budget ordinance amendment to recognize funds for $28,323 from the Durham’s
Partnership for Children for the Nutritionist position, continuation of which
is contingent upon continued grant funding).
The motion
carried unanimously.
The budget ordinance amendment
follows:
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FY 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Amendment No. 04BCC000039
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF DURHAM COUNTY that
the
FY 2003-04 Budget Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect budget adjustments.
Revenue:
Category Current Increase/Decrease Revised
Budget Budget
GENERAL FUND
Expenditures:
Activity
GENERAL FUND
Human Services
$357,918,016 $28,323 $357,946,339
All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 12th day of January, 2004.
(Budget
Ordinance Amendment recorded in Ordinance Book _____, page _____.)
_________________________
Consent Agenda Item No. e. Adequate
Public Schools Facilities Policy.
Summary: The Durham Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) expressed a
desire to have the City and County implement a policy tying rezonings with a
residential component to the availability of classroom space in public
schools. The proposed policy
establishes a level of service for public schools of each type. Revisions to the originally proposed policy
provide a methodology for calculating decreases as well as increases in
potential enrollment caused by rezonings.
Background: For the past few years, Durham has explored
the feasibility of implementing an adequate public school facilities ordinance,
linking the ability to rezone property to the availability of space within the
public school system. The County
Commissioners adopted a school impact fee ordinance in
September 2003 that became effective in January 2004. The BOCC also directed staff to prepare a level of service policy
for consideration of, and use by, both the City and County in the rezoning
process. The policy proposes that
rezonings be denied when the proposed student increase will cause the public
school system to exceed its building capacity system-wide.
The BOCC considered this policy at
its January Worksession and directed the addition of wording to exempt projects
that include proffers of schools sites from the policy.
Issues: Consistent with the recommendation of the County Attorney, the
draft policy establishes a level of service for schools and links the ability
to seek rezoning to zoning districts that would result in a residential density
not exceeding the ability of the public school system to accommodate the
projected student population. The
policy establishes the level of service as 120 percent of building capacity,
providing no consideration for modular classrooms on a school site. The policy measures capacity on a
district-wide basis rather than by attendance zone, reflecting the County
Attorney’s determination that, given the School Board's existing procedure for
assigning students to schools, this was the only viable means of measuring the
availability of capacity.
The policy also establishes a
procedure for evaluating requested rezonings, laying out the framework for such
evaluation. The data to be used for
evaluating building capacity and student generation are established. In addition, the policy provides for
tracking rezonings for three years, rather than the current two years, to
ensure greater accountability for past actions in determining the availability
of capacity.
Vice-Chairman Bowser removed the
consent agenda item to discuss the policy.
He inquired about the sentence that reads: “When any request for a
rezoning is submitted to the Planning Department, the Department shall review
the request in light of the ability of the Public School system to accommodate
development pursuant to the request."
Vice-Chairman Bowser expressed his opinion that the policy does not address the
issue of school overcrowding in individual schools or particular areas of the
county.
Mr. Frank Duke, AICP, City-County
Planning Director, responded that school overcrowding is considered on a
system-wide basis rather than by attendance zone, given Durham Public Schools’
liberal assignment provisions. The
policy encourages better planning and better coordination of planning between
DPS, the City, and the County.
Vice-Chairman Bowser inquired how
the policy would encourage better planning.
Mr. Duke clarified that data will
be tracked on a school-by-school basis to determine which schools need relief
from overcrowding.
Vice-Chairman Bowser asked why the
policy does not propose that rezonings be denied in specified regions of the
county where schools are overcrowded.
County Attorney Kitchen explained
that due to the open transfer policy, children in the Durham Public School
System may attend assigned schools, neighboring elementary schools, magnet
schools, or year-round schools. He could
not determine how to draft districts that would withstand scrutiny, if
challenged. Given the School Board’s
existing procedure for assigning students to schools, this was the only viable
means of measuring the availability of capacity and provides limited exemptions
from policy application. Orange County
has also adopted a similar policy (system-wide capacity) to prevent its School
Board from making zoning decisions (a board of education can change district
lines).
Vice-Chairman Bowser debated that
there should be no difficulty in the policy targeting selected
communities. Overcrowding has been an
ongoing problem in certain schools for a number of years and should be
addressed, as opposed to trying to determine the school system’s future plans
or needs.
Chairman Reckhow mentioned that
the Commissioners have legislative authority to deny rezonings that would
negatively impact schools.
Vice-Chairman Bowser did not
believe that the policy, as written, would be effective. It gives the developers a stronger argument
for rezoning as it relates to schools.
He noted that he would vote against approval of the Adequate Public
Schools Facilities Policy.
Commissioner Heron conveyed that
the policy could be amended in the future.
She expressed the importance of sending the policy to the City with a
unanimous vote.
Commissioner Cousin asked that the Board not rule out
future consideration of an Adequate Public Schools Facilities Ordinance,
which would give the Commissioners more authority.
Mr. Duke stated that this item would be presented to
City Council at its February 2 meeting.
Vice-Chairman Bowser decided to
vote for the policy, given that amendments could be made later. He also wanted to move the policy forward as
quickly as possible.
Vice-Chairman Bowser moved, seconded by
Commissioner Cousin, to approve the Adequate Public Schools Facilities Policy.
The motion carried unanimously.
The Adequate School Facilities
Policy follows:
DURHAM CITY/COUNTY
ADEQUATE SCHOOL FACILITIES POLICY
STATEMENT
OF POLICY
The schools in the Durham Public School System should not be
required to exceed their maximum building capacity as a result of changes in
the official Zoning Map of the City and County. To that end, zoning atlas
amendments that propose to allow an increase in the density of residential development
on any parcel of land when the public schools exceed their maximum building
capacity should be denied.
While the application of the
policy is intended to be advisory to the Governing Bodies, with the Governing
Bodies reserving the prerogative to consider each request for rezoning property
on its merits, as a general rule the Governing Bodies will not support requests
for rezoning property that are inconsistent with the criteria established
herein.
DEFINITIONS
Building Capacity: The design
capacity of the buildings (without trailers) located on a campus within the
Durham Public School System. Building capacity does not reflect campus
capacity, which includes students in mobile classrooms.
Density: A measure of
the intensity of residential development, considering the number of dwelling
units per acre on any site.
Level of Service (LOS): The measure of the utilization, expressed as a percentage, which
is the result of comparing the number of students enrolled in the school system
at all schools of each type with the total building capacity of all schools of
each type.
Maximum Building Capacity: The level of service that may be permitted in
the Durham Public School System: 120% of total building capacity.
Residential Development:
Any development that is comprised in whole or in part of
dwelling units designed for long-term human habitation.
School Type: Schools in
the same categories of education: i.e., elementary (grades K-5), middle (grades
6-9), and high schools (grades 9-12).
Student Generation Multipliers: The calculation of the number of students
anticipated to be generated by various types of residential development.
Separate multipliers should be employed for each type of school.
Total Building Capacity:
The sum of all building capacities of all schools of each
type within the Durham Public School System.
PROCEDURE
The
Durham Public School System and the City/County Planning Department shall be
jointly responsible for the implementation of this policy. This shall be
accomplished through the Planning Department’s review of requests for rezonings
in both the City and the County, considering the information provided to the
Department by the School System.
In
applying this policy, the enrollment of students in all schools of each type
throughout the Public School System shall be considered. This countywide
evaluation is required as a result of the flexibility the School Board allows
with regard to the assignment of students to schools, particularly magnet
schools. The distribution of the homes of students attending magnet schools in
the 2003-04 school years is shown in Attachments 1 through 8.
The
Durham Public School System shall provide the Planning Department with the
following information on at least an annual basis:
1. Identification
of the total building capacity of all schools of each type within the School
System;
2.
Identification of
the 20th day actual daily enrollment at all schools of each type
within the School System;
3.
An updated copy
of the School System’s Capital Improvement Plan; and,
4.
Additional
information describing the capacity that will be added as a result of any
projects for which funding is committed.
The
information provided by the School System each year shall be considered the
best available information until new information is provided. The current
building capacity, 20th day enrollment information, and programmed
additions to school capacity is shown in Attachment 9.
When
any request for a rezoning is submitted to the Planning Department, the
Department shall review the request in light of the ability of the Public
School System to accommodate development pursuant to the request. The number of
students anticipated to be generated as a result of the requested change in
zoning shall be calculated by the Planning Department, utilizing the most
recent student generation multipliers approved by the City, the County, and the
School System. The Planning Department shall determine the net change in
projected student impacts as a result of the requested change in zoning districts
and include that information in all staff reports associated with the requested
rezoning.
In
addition to considering the number of students projected to be generated by the
development, the Planning Department’s analysis shall consider the most recent
20th day actual daily enrollment statistic provided by the School
System, and the cumulative total change projected as a result of all rezonings
approved over the prior three years in order to determine the impact on school
facility space (measured by enrollment) anticipated as a result of approval of
the change in zoning. In evaluating the
cumulative impact, no reduction in the projected total number of students below
the existing enrollment shall be considered, even if changes in zoning may
suggest such a system-wide reduction. Attachment 9 reflects the impact of
zoning approvals over the past three years on schools because of projected
student generation during this period.
The
projected cumulative demand as a result of changes in zoning shall then be
compared to the maximum total building capacity of all schools of each school
type (elementary, middle, high) within the School System. This analysis shall
consider the existing maximum building capacity of all schools of each type, as
well as any committed increases in capacity as a result of the appropriation of
funding for the construction of additional school building capacity shown in
the Durham County Capital Improvement Plan, the approval by the voters of a
bond issue for the construction of additional school building capacity, or any
other funding mechanism that is identified by the Durham Public Schools as
being committed to the expansion of physical capacity.
If,
as a result of this analysis, the proposed development can be shown to cause
the level of service for schools of any type to be exceeded, the Planning
Department shall recommend that the resulting project be denied. That is, for
instance, if the analysis shows that the resulting development will cause the
school system enrollment of all elementary schools to exceed the maximum
building capacity (120% of total building capacity) for elementary schools, the
project shall not be recommended for approval.
Certain
projects shall be exempt from application of this policy. Any rezoning that provides
an opportunity for the developer to make a binding commitment, either through
conditions on a special use permit or proffers on a development plan, that the
project will be permanently age-restricted so that children under the age of 18
may not reside on the property, may be exempted from application of this
policy, for example. Similarly, projects that proffer expansions of school
building capacity including proffers of school sites to accommodate the impacts
of projected student generation (beyond the simple payment of school impact
fees) may also be exempted.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL
WORK
No policy is static. As
circumstances change or additional information is gathered, the data and
assumptions underlying the policy may change. Accordingly, the following
recommendations should be directed as a part of this policy.
1. The
Adequate Public School Facility Policy should be reinforced and supported in
the Durham Comprehensive Plan. The
Policy should be incorporated as part of the Public School Facilities Element
of the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that it is regularly evaluated with
revisions recommended as conditions change.
_________________________
Consent Agenda Item No. h. Budget
Ordinance Amendment No. 04BCC000041—Agreement for Participation in Costs of
Federal Grant for Prosecution of Cases Involving Gun Violence (approve the
agreement and the budget ordinance amendment in the amount of $2,500).
Vice-Chairman Bowser removed the
consent agenda item to ask James E. Hardin Jr., District Attorney, 14th
Prosecutorial District, whether the assistant district attorney will have the
authority to prosecute cases involving firearm-related crimes.
Mr. Hardin responded that the
assistant district attorney would have the full range of authority for
appropriate resolution of this particular caseload of crime, including trying
cases before a jury, negotiating pleas, or dismissing cases, if appropriate.
Vice-Chairman Bowser wanted to
know how the Board of County Commissioners could assist in getting the proper
people in place to prosecute gun violence cases.
Mr. Hardin replied that funding is
at the core of the court system’s ability to meet its obligations. His office handles 60,000 cases each year
with only 15 lawyers. Additional
resources would afford the court system the opportunity to take a more focused,
concerted approach as it addresses various types of crime. The court system must be funded adequately
to employ more prosecutors, public defenders, clerks, and judges. The County and City are not responsible for
funding. This is a state function;
however, the County and City can help.
Vice-Chairman Bowser encouraged
Mr. Hardin to attend the meeting with the Durham Legislative Delegation when
legislative goals are discussed. A
staff member would inform Mr. Harden of the time and date.
Chairman Reckhow reported that the
Crime Cabinet is working with the court system to schedule a meeting.
Mr. Hardin suggested that the
political force in the community make an appeal to the North Carolina
Legislature as well.
Vice-Chairman Bowser complimented
Mr. Hardin for his work.
Vice-Chairman
Bowser moved, seconded by Commissioner Heron, to approve Budget Ordinance
Amendment
No. 04BCC000041—Agreement for Participation in Costs of Federal Grant for
Prosecution of Cases Involving Gun Violence (approve the agreement and the
budget ordinance amendment in the amount of $2,500).
The motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Heron stated to the
public that Durham County Government has gone the extra mile to assist with
funding in the court system.
The budget ordinance amendment
follows:
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FY 2003-04 Budget Ordinance
Amendment No. 04BCC000041
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF DURHAM COUNTY that
the
FY 2003-04 Budget Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect budget adjustments.
Revenue:
Category Current Increase/Decrease Revised
Budget Budget
Expenditures:
Activity
GENERAL FUND
General Government $23,539,415 $ 2,500 $23,541,915
Other $18,740,499 ($2,500) $18,737,999
All ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
This the 12th day of January, 2004.
(Budget
Ordinance Amendment recorded in Ordinance Book _____, page _____.)
Public Hearing—Living Wage
At the December 1, 2003 Board of
County Commissioners’ Worksession, staff presented a review of the livable wage
ordinance proposed by DurhamCAN, which set a living wage at $9.85 to be applied
to all businesses with County service contracts. An internal taskforce met several times to discuss the impact of
such an ordinance, developing a Living Wage Policy that the Board of County
Commissioners adopted at the December 8, 2003 Regular Session.
According to the County Purchasing
Department, the County has approximately 545 service contracts. Given the large number of service contracts,
the taskforce recommended hiring an outside consultant to determine the fiscal
impact of applying a living wage policy to all for-profit service
contractors. The Board of Commissioners
set this public hearing at the December Worksession to allow for-profit vendors
to speak on the potential impact of a living wage on their business. The Board also directed staff to send out
notices to all service contractors to be affected by this Living Wage Policy,
inviting them to the public hearing.
Letters were mailed on December 8, 2003.
County Manager Mike Ruffin gave a
synopsis of the item, making the following points:
·
At the October 7, 2003 Commissioner Worksession, DurhamCAN
presented a proposal for a Durham County living wage ordinance.
·
The proposal seeks to “ensure that all people working in
County Government and all those working for the County as employee of
businesses with service contracts shall receive at least a living wage
calculated as the Federal Poverty Level plus 7.5% ($9.85)".
·
A Living Wage Taskforce was created to study the
implications and develop a recommendation.
Through its study, the Taskforce found that the County is presently
engaged in approximately 545 service contracts (a contract value of
approximately $86 million) and is not currently monitoring the wages of these
workers.
·
It is estimated that approximately 150 of these contracts
have employees working for the County that would be impacted by the living
wage. However, the County Attorney has
stated that a living wage requirement could not apply to services that are
competitively bid or where a statute or grant requires a different pay
rate.
·
The following recommendations were agreed upon at a meeting
between members of DurhamCAN and County staff and presented to the BOCC at the
December Worksession.
1.
Set a
livable wage based on the federal poverty guidelines plus 7.5%: $9.51, to be adjusted annually.
2.
The
living wage will apply to all full-time County employees, at no additional cost
to the County for the first year of implementation.
3.
The
living wage will also apply to all full-time temporary employees. The hourly rate will be negotiated on an
as-needed basis between the County department and the individual temporary
agency.
4.
Further
study is needed to determine the fiscal impact of the living wage on service
contracts, part-time employees, and nonprofit organizations.
5.
Adopt
the policy for living wage for all full-time County employees, effective July
1, 2004.
·
In
addition to the above, the Taskforce recommended that volunteers and students
earning course credit be exempt and that part-time County Government employees,
service contracted employees, and employees of nonprofits working under a
contract with County Government be given further study and a recommendation be
brought back to the BOCC once a fiscal impact has been estimated. (This would affect election precinct workers,
volunteer firefighters, and part-time paramedics— to name a few examples that
raised complications in implementation.)
·
In
addition, study of living wage implementation in jurisdictions around the
country was conducted. Costs were found
to be lowest in cities, but a huge variation exists among all, making it very
difficult to predict costs in Durham County.
For example, in jurisdictions that applied the living wage to outside
service contracts, costs ranged from relatively no cost (Baltimore), $7.6
million annually in Orange County, Florida; up to $5 million annually in Miami
Dade County; to a high of $59 million annually in San Francisco.
·
Both
the City of Durham and Orange County have living wage ordinances in place;
however, the City estimates that fewer than 20 contracts are actually impacted
by this living wage and Orange County’s ordinance only applies to
full-time internal employees, not to contracted workers.
·
Staff
recommended that an outside consultant be hired to study the impact of requiring
a living wage of $9.51 on all County service contracts. Commissioners scheduled tonight’s public
hearing to hear from for-profit vendors contracting with the County about the
potential impact of a $9.51 wage requirement on their businesses.
Chairman Reckhow indicated that
the Federal Government releases a new Federal Poverty Index in February. Subsequently, $9.51 per hour will be
adjusted, presumably reflecting an increase.
When the living wage is implemented in July, an hourly rate greater than
$9.51 is anticipated.
Chairman Reckhow opened the public
hearing that was properly advertised.
The following DurhamCAN members
spoke in support of extending the living wage policy to County service
contracts:
Reverend Cornelius Battle, 5202
Langford Trail, Durham, NC 27713
Lamonica Coleman, 4600
University Drive #314, Durham, NC 27707
Kerry Ford Morancy, 2424
Vesson Avenue, Durham, NC 27707 (Housing Team)
Ann Stock, 3527
Racine Street, Durham, NC 27707
Maria Eugenia Calvopina, 5619
Christie Lane, Durham, NC 27713
Reverend Michael Walrond, 9
Queensland Court, Durham, NC 27712
Karima Abdusamad, 1507
Logan Street, Durham, NC 27707 (Education Team)
Guillermo Rodriguez, 2111
Pershing Street, Durham, NC 27705
Rom Coles, 1305
Watts Street, Durham, NC 27701 (Jobs Team)
Frank Hyman, 1412 N.
Mangum Street, Durham, NC 27701 (Jobs Team)
John Schelp, 1022
Rosehill Avenue, Durham, NC 27705, representing the NAACP as
Vice President of the Durham Branch, also supported implementation of the
living wage policy to County service contractors.
Clinton Ball, 406
Willow Avenue, Knoxville, TN 37923, shared with the Board how policy
implementation would affect his business, SSC Services Solutions (provides
custodial services to Durham County).
He estimated that his cost would increase annually by 42 percent or
$110,000 on a $190,000 contract.
As no one else requested to speak,
Chairman Reckhow closed the public hearing and referred the matter back to the
Board for discussion and consideration.
Chairman Reckhow wished to know
how the consultant would access the fiscal impact.
County Attorney Kitchen replied
that the consultant must survey the County’s current service contractors to
determine how implementation of a living wage will affect their contracts. In addition, the consultant must perform a
market survey. Ideally, the consultant
will have experience with the impact of livable wage policies and ordinances on
other City and County Governments.
Durham County administration does not believe that the full cost will be
passed to the County because of the market forces. Nevertheless, an approximate dollar amount must be determined so
the Board can make a decision.
Chairman Reckhow inquired about
existing contracts.
Attorney Kitchen informed her that
existing contracts could not be terminated; however, contracts with a short
termination period can be terminated at the end of the period. Contracts with no termination provision can
be renewed with the new provisions. To
phase in all the contracts will take time, perhaps three years to implement
fully.
Mr. Kitchen cautioned the Board that a contractor’s refusal to cooperate will
reduce the reliability of the results and should be noted.
Chairman Reckhow recommended that
a letter be sent to notify contractors of the forthcoming survey.
Commissioner Jacobs inquired about
the length of time needed for the consultant to determine the fiscal
impact. She also asked if contractors,
other than Mr. Ball who spoke tonight, responded to the letter sent out on
December 8.
Ms. Duer related that the
consultant would need approximately 90 to 120 days. The Purchasing Manager had received questions from contractors
and had responded accordingly.
Chairman Reckhow inquired about
the next steps and whether the County had funds to hire a consultant.
County Manager Ruffin explained
that funds were reserved last spring for items that could not be anticipated at
the time. He would not hazard a guess
relative to the cost for fear that a consultant might assume a set price. The County Manager wished to allow
competition. He would recommend a
consultant at a February Board meeting.
The consultant’s report would be presented in time for budget
consideration.
Chairman Reckhow suggested that
contractors be surveyed to determine how many Durham residents they
employ. Living wage implementation may
save the County money in terms of reducing the need for Human Services,
affordable housing, childcare subsidies, etc.
If the consultant cannot provide quantitative information, perhaps
qualitative information can be provided based on the experience of other
jurisdictions.
Vice-Chairman Bowser recommended
that the consultant survey contract service employees making less than $9.51
per hour to ascertain whether they are using services provided to low-income
families. Although State and Federal
Governments provide many services, Durham County tax dollars are utilized to
provide the administrators for those services.
Commissioner
Cousin moved, seconded by Commissioner Heron, to authorize the County Manager
to publish a request for proposal to evaluate the fiscal impact of living wage
policy implementation on County service contracts.
The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner
Cousin stated, for the record, that even though a living wage is positive for
Durham County, $9.51 per hour is inadequate as a livable wage.
Amendments to the 2000-2005 Durham Consolidated Plan and the
FY 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 Consolidated Action Plans
The City of Durham Department of
Housing and Community Development requested that the Board of County
Commissioners, having held a public hearing regarding an amendment to the
2003-2004 Consolidated Action Plan on December 8, 2003, and having received
citizen comment on how City-County HOME Consortium funds can be used to address
housing needs in Durham, adopt Amendments to the 2000-2005 Durham Consolidated
Plan and the FY 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 Consolidated Action Plans.
Staff from the City of Durham
Department of Housing and Community Development reviewed this request and
recommended adoption.
RESOURCE PERSON(S):
Katherine Simmons, Associate Director, City of Durham Housing and Community
Development, and Vickie Miller, Planning and Development Officer
COUNTY
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: The County
Manager recommended that the Board adopt Amendments to the 2000-2005 Durham
Consolidated Plan and the
FY 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004 Consolidated Action Plans.
Ms. Simmons briefly highlighted
the attachments to the agenda item.
Chairman Reckhow and Commissioner
Heron asked questions about the attachments, particularly about the $470,000
designated as “reprogramming" funds for Next Step Housing, which provides
housing for the mentally ill. The
County has a genuine interest in this project.
Ms. Simmons explained that
reprogramming dollars will not be used for the designated projects. The funds will be placed back into the
budget and allocated to new projects (amendments).
Commissioner Heron and Chairman
Reckhow inquired why Next Step Housing is on the reprogramming list. The Commissioners need to understand fund
allocation, as the County has a substantial investment through the HOME
program.
Ms. Simmons replied that she knew
no specifics related to Nest Step Housing; however, reprogramming is carried
out in consultation with the director and project staff, being agreed upon by
the sub recipient.
Commissioner Heron voiced her
concern that $43,500 was spent on homebuyer education.
Discussion ensued about a question
Vice-Chairman Bowser asked several months earlier. He had inquired how the County could apply for funding for the
purchase and/or renovation of the YMCA building for the Head Start
project. He had received no
response.
Vice-Chairman Bowser voiced his
concern about asking clear, concise questions and getting no cooperation from
the City.
Ms. Simmons informed the
Commissioners that City and County agencies could currently submit applications
for funding, but the money would not be allocated prior to the FY 2004-05
budget year.
Chairman Reckhow asked whether any
funds are available in this year’s budget.
The Commissioners must have an answer in the immediate future, as the
public hearing for the bond order is scheduled for the February 9 meeting.
Constance Stancil, Interim Director,
Housing, assured the Commissioners that she would send them a letter with
answers to their questions by the end of the week.
Vice-Chairman Bowser moved, seconded by
Commissioner Heron, to defer action on this item until the January 26 Regular
Session, at which time the City of Durham Department of Housing and Community
Development would answer Commissioner questions and concerns.
Durham Open Space Commission Matching Grants Recommendation
The Durham Open Space and Trails
Commission (DOST) received five applications for Matching Grants Program funds
to assist
