BOC Minutes October 16 2017 approve
October 16, 2017
1
PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 16, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT
Tracey L. Kendrick Heidi York, County Manager
Gordon Powell C. Ronald Aycock, County Attorney
Jimmy B. Clayton Brenda B. Reaves, Clerk to the Board
Kyle W. Puryear
B. Ray Jeffers
The Board of Commissioners for the County of Person, North Carolina, met in
regular session on Monday, October 16, 2017 at 9:00am in the Commissioners’ meeting
room in the Person County Office Building.
Chairman Kendrick called the meeting to order. Vice Chairman Powell gave an
invocation and Commissioner Clayton led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.
County Attorney, Ron Aycock joined the meeting via telephone conference call.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the
agenda.
RECOGNITION:
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION:
Chairman Kendrick read and presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Person
County Retiree, Elaine Hughes.
October 16, 2017
2
October 16, 2017
3
PUBLIC HEARING:
FY2019 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GRANT
APPLICATION:
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Powell and carried 5-0 to open the duly
advertised public hearing for a request to submit an application for the FY2019 Community
Transportation Program Grant.
Person Area Transportation System Transit Manager, Kathy Adcock requested
Board consideration to approve the FY2019 Community Transportation Program Grant
Application to be submitted to the NCDOT for Administration and Capital Budget requests
for the operation of the Transportation Department with the assistance of local funds. She
presented a Public Transportation Program FY2019 Resolution and explained the FY2019
Local Share Certification for Funding noting the requested fund amounts as follows:
PERSON COUNTY
Requested Funding Amounts
Project Total Amount Local
Share______
Administrative $ 189,504 $ 28,426
(15%)
5311 Operating (No State Match) $ $
(50%)
5310 Operating (No State Match) $ $
(50%)
5307 Operating $ $ (50%)
5307 Planning $ $ (20%)
Capital $ 121,000 $ 12,100 (10%)
Mobility Management $ $
(10%)
Funding programs covered are 5311, 5310, 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities, 5307 (Small fixed route,
regional, and consolidated urban-rural systems)
TOTAL $ 310,504 $ 40,526
Total Funding Requests Total Local Share
October 16, 2017
4
The Local Share is available from the following sources:
Source of Funds Grant Applied To Amount
Local Funds Admin $ 28,426
Local Funds Capital $ 12,100
TOTAL $ 40,526
** Fare box revenue is not an applicable source for local share funding
There were no individuals appearing before the Board to speak in favor of or in
opposition to the request to submit an application for the FY2019 Community
Transportation Program Grant.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to close the public
hearing for a request to submit an application for the FY2019 Community Transportation
Program Grant.
CONSIDERATION TO GRANT OR DENY REQUEST TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION FOR THE FY2019 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM GRANT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to approve the
request to submit an application to the NCDOT for the FY2019 Community Transportation
Program Grant and the FY2019 Public Transportation Program Resolution as presented.
October 16, 2017
5
October 16, 2017
6
October 16, 2017
7
INFORMAL COMMENTS:
The following individuals appeared before the Board to make informal comments:
Ms. Frances Blalock of 1504 Surl Mt. Tirzah Road, Timberlake advocated for the
transfer station option for the county’s solid waste solution and for the Board to choose the
safety and health of its citizens instead of money. She referred to House Bill 56 and read
the following: “If the unit of local government is a party to an exclusive franchise
agreement, to which Person County is, with a private entity governing the management of
disposal of waste within the jurisdiction in effect on September 1, 2017, the unit of local
government shall adopt and enforce such an ordinance until the date such franchise has
expired.” Ms. Blalock stated nothing in section 17 in this bill shall be construed to impact
the terms of contract, franchise agreement or other agreement between the unit of local
government and another entity concerning the management of solid waste or the financing
of such services or related facilities or equipment in effect on the date this section becomes
law. Ms. Blalock summarized that this bill does not apply to Person County at this time or
can change the terms of the current agreement with Republic because it was in effect on
the date this bill became law. Ms. Blalock stated the bill addresses new county owned
landfills, not transfer station. She said Person County has until 2019 to solve the county’s
solid waste problems. Ms. Blalock asked Vice Chairman Powell to explain why he said
the transfer station was a moot point.
Ms. Betty Blalock of 144 Tirzah Ridge Rd, Rougemont told the Board she hoped
she lived long enough to see the monster landfill go away. She reported another death and
others diagnosed with cancer that live within the mile and a half of the landfill. Ms. Blalock
noted the many trash trucks on US158.
DISCUSSION/ADJUSTMENT/APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to approve the
Consent Agenda with the following items:
A. Approval of Minutes of October 2, 2017,
B. Budget Amendment #7,
C. Re-advertisement of fiber RFP, and
D. Tax Adjustments for the month of October 2017
a. Tax Releases
b. NC Vehicle Tax System pending refunds
October 16, 2017
8
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING:
Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate reminded the Board that Cardinal
Innovations refunded monies that were not spent in FY2017 for mental health services.
The total amount of the refund was $38,196. Ms. Tate stated the Board, at its October 2,
2017 meeting, had consensus for a funding option to include a program to address mental
health issues in the jail. Since then, the Sheriff gathered information from neighboring
counties about mental health programs in jails and has requested $20,000 for a pilot
program. In addition, staff has gathered feedback from the Health Department, EMS, the
court system, and community groups about the community’s mental health needs. Ms. Tate
presented the following funding option to be managed by the Health Department:
Mental Health counseling pilot in jails- $20,000
40 Naloxone kits and training for first responders- $3,500
Safe room at the hospital - $5,000
Drug Court - $9,696
TOTAL= $38,196
When asked about additional funding request from the Drug Court program, Ms.
Tate noted no written requests have been submitted however, at the Substance Abuse
Summit, a need was expressed for additional funding. Commissioner Jeffers noted how
Person Memorial Hospital diverts patients to Durham and suggested to take out the funding
for the safe room and put those funds toward the Drug Court program.
Sheriff Jones noted he did not know the intention of the hospital for a safe room,
but for officer and staff safety, he stated his preference for the safe room to remain a
funding priority using the additional mental health funding. Sheriff Jones explained that
once an officer takes an individual in custody into the hospital, they are no longer
considered in custody, but a patient under the treatment of hospital. Individuals with
mental health issues are often sedated to control the combative behavior for the safety of
staff and for treatment. In the meantime, the officers are standing by during the observation
period.
Ms. Tate stated she had spoken with the hospital CEO and other staff who have
expressed interest in the one-time funding for a safe room noting they would provide for
any additional costs that exceed the $5,000 for the required equipment and locking system.
Ms. Tate said a Memorandum of Agreement could be offered.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to approve the
additional Mental Health funding as presented with the understanding the $5,000 for the
safe room would be used for that purpose only.
October 16, 2017
9
NEW BUSINESS:
SALE OF “OLD SENIOR CENTER” SURPLUS PROPERTY:
The Board of Commissioners approved a resolution to begin the upset bid process
for the “Old Senior Center” property. A public notice of sale was last advertised in the
Courier-Times on September 30, 2017 with bids due to the clerk by October 9, 2017 at
5:00pm.
Assistant County Manager, Sybil Tate updated the Board that the “Old Senior
Center” property highest upset bid was $3,000 from the Northern Piedmont Bible Institute
by its board member, Connie Dickens McCain. No new bids were received for the “Old
Senior Center” property,” so the highest bidder may purchase the property, with approval
by the Board of Commissioners.
Ms. Tate said the Board of Commissioners has the right to reject bids at any time;
however, should the Board decide to move forward with the sale of the “Old Senior Center”
property”, the clerk and county attorney can complete the purchasing process.
Ms. Tate asked the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign the appropriate
documents for the sale of the “Old Senior Center” surplus property to the Northern
Piedmont Bible Institute.
Ms. Tate told the group the sale of the “Old Hotel” surplus property was completed
last week.
Chairman Kendrick asked if the Northern Piedmont Bible Institute was already
located in Person County. Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves, told the group it was her
understanding that the Northern Piedmont Bible Institute was currently located in Person
County and they were looking for a larger facility for its group.
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeffers and carried 5-0 to approve the sale
of the “Old Senior Center” surplus property to Northern Piedmont Bible Institute for
$3,000 and to authorize the Chairman to sign the appropriate documents.
October 16, 2017
10
IMPACT OF NEW LEGISLATION ON PERSON COUNTY SOLID WASTE:
County Attorney, Ron Aycock discussed the impact of new legislation on Person
County Solid Waste noting that earlier this month, the NC House and Senate voted to
override the Governor’s veto of House Bill 56. The bill, which is now law, was complex
and covered a wide-ranging number of topics - including a provision that the NC
Association of County Commissioners believes reduces local government control over its
solid waste. The County Attorney provided a memo detailing his legal analysis of how
this new legislation impacts Person County’s solid waste discussion.
Date: October 9, 2017
To: Board of Commissioners and Manager
Re: Effect of 2017 actions of the NC General Assembly relating to “flow control” and
“life of site permitting” on Person County solid waste program.
From: C. Ronald Aycock, County Attorney
Facts: Person County has an existing contract with Republic Services for operation of a
landfill in Person County and a franchise issued to Republic for such operation. The
franchise was extended by two years and is effective through June 30, 2019. The contract
which was for twenty years and may be extended for 10 additional years at the option of
the County has been extended for one year through July 1, 2018.
Among other provisions, the contract provides for a host fee to be paid to Person County
based upon usage which yields Person County in excess of $500,000 per year. It also
provides that Person County will use its “best efforts” to assure that waste from Person
County will be disposed of in the Republic facility. It further provides that waste will not
be accepted from certain jurisdictions (Raleigh and Durham) and will not be accepted from
areas 60 miles or more from the landfill.
The County is exploring its future options including the provision of a county transfer
station and the transfer of waste outside the county.
The 2017 General Assembly has enacted two provisions which impact the county options.
For convenience in identification I will designate those provisions as “flow control” and
“life of site” provisions.
October 16, 2017
11
FLOW CONTROL PROVISION
The new law prohibits a county from requiring that all waste in a county go to a specific
site (flow control) except in very limited circumstances. For Person County that limited
circumstance means for the period of its existing franchise (until June 30, 2019). It is likely
then that if the County grants additional franchises to effectuate the remaining years (9) of
the contract extension that it may not be able to direct that all waste go to the Republic site.
There is no authority in the new law to direct the flow of Person County waste to a new
transfer station. This will have the likely effect of limiting the flow of waste to the proposed
new transfer station and may therefore affect its financial viability.
An additional likely effect of the new law is to limit the ability of the County to restrict the
receipt of waste from areas 60+ miles away, since to do so would limit the flow of waste.
This effect is not as clear as the prohibition on the direction of waste from within the
County, but is likely to be the effect of the law. The city has independent authority and
cannot be restricted as to where they send its waste.
Please note that the legislation still establishes a policy that a solid waste facility should
serve a specific geographic area, but prohibits a county from requiring that service.
The pertinent legislation is set out below:
“130A-294(b) In furtherance of this purpose and intent, it is hereby determined
and declared that it is necessary for the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the State
that solid waste management facilities permitted hereunder and serving a specified
geographic area shall be used by public or private owners or occupants of all lands,
buildings, and premises within the geographic area, and a unit of local government may,
by ordinance, require that all solid waste generated within the geographic area and placed
in the waste stream for disposal, shall be delivered to the permitted solid waste
management facility or facilities serving the geographic area. Actions taken pursuant to
this Article shall be deemed to be acts of the sovereign power of the State of North Carolina,
and to the extent reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of this section, a unit of
local government may displace competition with public service for solid waste
management and disposal. It is further determined and declared that no person, firm,
corporation, association or entity within the geographic area shall engage in any activities
which would be competitive with this purpose or with ordinances, rules adopted pursuant
to the authority granted herein.
(c) Except as provided in subsections (d{REGIONAL SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES}) and (e)[CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIALS MAY NOT
BE DIRECTED] of this section, a unit of local government may, by ordinance, franchise,
business license, contract, or otherwise, require that all solid waste generated within the
geographic area and placed in the waste stream for disposal be delivered to the permitted
solid waste management facility or facilities serving the geographic area only under one
of the following conditions:
October 16, 2017
12
(1) If the unit of local government has debt associated with solid waste
management facilities and equipment outstanding on September 1,
2017, the unit of local government may adopt and enforce such an
ordinance until the date that such debt has matured.
(3) If the unit of local government is a party to an exclusive franchise
agreement with a private entity governing the management or disposal
of waste within the jurisdiction in effect on September 1, 2017, the unit
of local government may adopt and enforce such an ordinance until the
date that such franchise has expired.”
LIFE OF SITE
The new law provides that all new permits for solid waste facilities or transfer stations be
issued by the state for life of the site not to exceed 60 years. Life of site is defined to be
from inception of the permit until the facility reaches its permitted height. It is not clear
how the life of site for a transfer station would be determined. The legislation explicitly
provides that a life of site permit survives the expiration of its underlying franchise. But a
county may extend the old franchise under the same terms and conditions until the
expiration of the life of site permit. A franchise extended to match the life of site permit
period is not required to be enacted with a public hearing, deposit of materials, at the public
library, etc.
The original law requiring a franchise in order to apply for a permit, even a life of site
permit is retained.
Should the County elect to extend additional contract periods for the existing Republic
site, the likely effects are:
1- A franchise extension even for just a year is likely to afford Republic an
opportunity to apply for a new life of site permit from the state. If that occurs
Person County would be entitled to extend its franchise for life of site and
receive the same benefits (payments, etc., as is in the present contract).
2- If a new franchise is not enacted after June 30, 2018, Republic is not likely to be
able to secure a new permit for operation.
Mr. Aycock estimated the remaining life of site, which is a calculation of how much
space if left in the landfill before it is filled to capacity, at approximately 30 years.
Mr. Aycock said the state has requirements that it will impose through permitting
a facility, noting it is not automatic that a permit will be awarded the full 30-year period
but they would have the expectation to do so.
October 16, 2017
13
The pertinent “life of site” legislation is set out below:
“"§ 130A-294. Solid waste management program.
(a2) Permits for sanitary landfills and transfer stations shall be issued for the life-of-site
of the facility unless revoked as otherwise provided under this Article or upon the
expiration of any local government franchise required for the facility pursuant to
subsection (b1) of this section. revoked. For purposes of this section, "life-of-site" means
the period from the initial receipt of solid waste at the facility until the Department
approves final closure of the facility. the facility reaches its final permitted elevations,
which period shall not exceed 60 years. Permits issued pursuant to this subsection shall
take into account the duration of any permits previously issued for the facility and the
remaining capacity at the facility.
(a3) In order to preserve long-term disposal capacity, a life-of-site permit issued for a
sanitary landfill shall survive the expiration of a local government approval or franchise.
In order to preserve any economic benefits included in the franchise, the County may
extend the franchise under the same terms and conditions for the term of the life-of-site
permit. The extension of the franchise hereby shall not trigger the requirements for a new
permit, a major permit modification, or a substantial amendment to the permit.
(b1) (1) For purposes of this subsection and subdivision (4) of subsection (a) of this
section, a "substantial amendment" means either:
(2) A person who intends to apply for a new permit for a sanitary landfill shall
obtain, prior to applying for a permit, a franchise for the operation of the sanitary landfill
from each local government having jurisdiction over any part of the land on which the
sanitary landfill and its appurtenances are located or to be located. A local government
may adopt a franchise ordinance under G.S. 153A-136 or G.S. 160A-319. A franchise
granted for a sanitary landfill shall (i) be granted for the life-of-site of the landfill, but for
a period not to exceed 60 years, and (ii) include all of the following:
a. A statement of the population to be served, including a description of the
geographic area.
b. A description of the volume and characteristics of the waste stream.
c. A projection of the useful life of the sanitary landfill.
d. Repealed by Session Laws 2013-409, s. 8, effective August 23, 2013.
e. The procedures to be followed for governmental oversight and regulation of the
fees and rates to be charged by facilities subject to the franchise for waste generated in the
jurisdiction of the franchising entity.
October 16, 2017
14
f. A facility plan for the sanitary landfill that shall include the boundaries of the
proposed facility, proposed development of the facility site, the boundaries of all waste
disposal units, final elevations and capacity of all waste disposal units, the amount of waste
to be received per day in tons, the total waste disposal capacity of the sanitary landfill in
tons, a description of environmental controls, and a description of any other waste
management activities to be conducted at the facility. In addition, the facility plan
shall show the proposed location of soil borrow areas, leachate facilities, and all other
facilities and infrastructure, including ingress and egress to the facility.
(3) Prior to the award of a franchise for the construction or operation of a
sanitary landfill, the board of commissioners of the county or counties in which the sanitary
landfill is proposed to be located or is located or, if the sanitary landfill is proposed to be
located or is located in a city, the governing board of the city shall conduct a public
hearing. The board of commissioners of the county or counties in which the sanitary
landfill is proposed to be located or is located or, if the sanitary landfill is proposed to be
located or is located in a city, the governing board of the city shall provide at least 30 days'
notice to the public of the public hearing. The notice shall include a summary of all the
information required to be included in the franchise, and shall specify the procedure to be
followed at the public hearing. The applicant for the franchise shall provide a copy of the
application for the franchise that includes all of the information required to be included in
the franchise, to the public library closest to the proposed sanitary landfill site to be made
available for inspection and copying by the public. The requirements of this subdivision
shall not apply to franchises extended pursuant to subsection (a3) of this section.”
Mr. Aycock summarized by saying the new law needed to be intensely studied and
regulations issued.
Commissioner Jeffers asked how the new legislation would impact the transfer
station option through a contract for operation by a private entity and Mr. Aycock stated it
would not impact that option so long as it was understood that the transfer station could
receive waste without restriction.
Commissioner Jeffers asked if the County pursued negotiations with Republic that
the permit would be considered for life of site, or up to 60 years, to which Mr. Aycock
stated that was his understanding for any new state permit that would be issued for life of
site noting there were many requirements by the state that could impact the permit period
of time. Mr. Aycock posed the question if a new permit request would be viewed as a new
permit or only an amendment to the existing permit, something that is not clear in the new
legislation but to be worked out in the regulations by the state.
Mr. Aycock told the group that he, in his opinion, felt the County could
contractually limit daily tonnage, but warned the group that there were many unanswered
questions to be further researched and analyzed.
October 16, 2017
15
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT:
Chairman Kendrick had no report.
MANAGER’S REPORT:
County Manager, Heidi York reported she was completing grant applications to
submit to Golden Leaf by October 20, 2017 on behalf of 1) Piedmont Community College
in the amount of $400,000 which was requesting an $80,000 local match and 2) the
Economic Development mega-site project. Ms. York stated she would be in touch with
the commissioners to discuss the local match amounts which are recommended to be at
20% for higher consideration.
COMMISSIONER REPORT/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Jeffers reported he was recently accepted the nomination to serve as
the chairman for the Telamon board, the nonprofit working for Person, Caswell and
Rockingham counties related to work force training. He noted there were current vacancies
on the Telamon board for the members of the community as well as low income housing
participants.
Commissioner Clayton commented that the NC Association of County
Commissioners had opposed House Bill 56 due to it taking away local government
authority and financially impacting local government and taxpayers.
Commissioner Puryear had no report.
Vice Chairman Powell reported that he attended several activities held in
observation for Race Unity Week; he commended the efforts of those that organized such
events.
October 16, 2017
16
CLOSED SESSION #1
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to enter Closed
Session at 9:45am per General Statute 143-318.11(a) (3) to consult with an attorney and
General Statute 143-318.11(a) (5) to establish, or to instruct the public body's staff or
negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body
in negotiating the price and other material terms of a contract with the following individuals
permitted to attend: County Manager, Heidi York, Clerk to the Board, Brenda Reaves,
County Attorney, Ron Aycock (via telephone conference call), and Assistant County
Manager, Sybil Tate.
Chairman Kendrick called the Closed Session to order at 9:50am.
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried 5-0 to return to open
session at 10:14am.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion was made by Commissioner Puryear and carried to adjourn the meeting
at 10:14am.
_____________________________ ______________________________
Brenda B. Reaves Tracey L. Kendrick
Clerk to the Board Chairman