The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 2013 09-03 New Hanover County, North Carolina N � F September 3, 2013 Agenda Mission New Hanover County is committed to progressive public policy, superior service, courteous contact, judicious exercise of authority, and sound fiscal management to meet the needs and concerns of our citizens today and tomorrow. Vision A vibrant prosperous, diverse coastal community, committed to building a sustainable future for generations to come. Core Values Integrity • Accountability • Professionalism • Innovation • Stewardship AGENDA NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ,RVp R® Assembly Room, New Hanover County Historic Courthouse k . 24 North Third Street, Room 301 Wilmington, NC WOODY WHITE,CHAIRMAN-BETH DAWSON,VICE-CHAIR JONATHAN BARFIELD,JR.,COMMISSIONER-THOMAS WOLFE,COMMISSIONER CHRIS COUDRIET,COUNTY MANAGER WANDA COPLEY,COUNTY ATTORNEY SHEILA SCHULT,CLERK TO THE "` BOARD SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 6:00 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER(Chairman Woody White) MOMENT OF SILENCE(Chairman Woody White) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE(Vice-Chair Beth Dawson) APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 1. Approval of Minutes 2. Adoption of Pink Heals Day Proclamation 3. Adoption of a Sole Source Resolution to Purchase a New Demo Model Caterpillar 826H Compactor to Replace an Existing Unit Damaged by Fire 4. Approval of Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Marquis Hills/Heritage Park Interlocal Agreement 5. Approval of Cape Fear Museum's Request to Offer $1 Off General Adult Admission through AAA 6. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Entering Into Agreements to Extend UNCW Police Territorial Jurisdiction 7. Approval of July 2013 Tax Collection Reports 8. Approval of Board of Education Budget Amendment 9. Adoption of Budget Amendments REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 10. Consideration of Literacy Awareness Month and International Literacy Day Proclamation 11. Consideration of Recovery Month Proclamation 12. Public Hearing Text Amendment(A-412, 05/13)- Request by Staff to Amend Section 71-1(9) of the Zoning Ordinance to Provide Clarification as to When Staff May Review Administratively a Minor Modification for an Approved Special Use Permit or Rezoning 13. Presentation by CDM Smith, Inc., Regarding the Phase I Evaluation of the Current Countywide Solid Waste and Recycling Programs, Community and Stakeholder Outreach, and an Evaluation of Waste Management Strategies, Technologies and Processes 14. Presentation and County Manager Recommendation for Health& Human Services Organization and Governance 15. Consideration of October Work Session on the FY14-15 Budget PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS (limit three minutes) Board of ommissionereeting 09/03/2013 ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS OF BUSINESS 16. Additional Items County Manager County Commissioners Clerk to the Board County Attorney 17. ADJOURN Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Chairman White CONTACT(S): Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes BRIEF SUMMARY: Approve minutes from the following meeting: Regular Meeting held on August 19, 2013 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve minutes. COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 1 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 2 DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Duane Eastmond,President, Guardians of the Ribbon, Cape Fear Chapter CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of Pink Heals Day Proclamation BRIEF SUMMARY: The "Pink Heals Tour" will be making a stop at Mayfaire Town Center on September 19, 2013 from 4-8pm. The event will include six pink emergency vehicles, survivor tribute, food and drinks, kid's activities, live music and will end with a release of sky lanterns. Duane Eastmond, President of Guardians of the Ribbon, Cape Fear Chapter, submitted the attached proclamation for consideration. For more information, visit their website at http://pinkhealseapefear.org/. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: Pink Heals Day Proclamation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 2-0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PINK HEALS DAY PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Guardians of the Ribbon Inc/DBA Pink Heals Tour is an National non-profit organization consisting of firefighters, police officers and leaders in the community whose sole purpose is raising awareness for the fight against cancer; and WHEREAS, in September 2007 the "Pink Heals Tour" began, encouraging public safety professionals, local leaders and citizens throughout the community to wear pink in honor of all women and to join forces to help them in their fight against cancer; and WHEREAS, the spirit of this campaign is to fight for those who have lost the ability to fight for themselves; asking for public support and raising understanding and awareness to all citizens; and WHEREAS, anything is possible when good people devote themselves to a cause that does so much good and benefits so many; and WHEREAS, the "Pink Heals Tour" will enter Mayfaire Town Center on September 19, 2013, and will be on public display for all to see; encouraging those that have beat or those that have lost loved ones to cancer; come forward and pay homage to them by affixing their name to one of the Pink Fire Trucks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that September 19, 2013 be recognized as "Pink Heals Day" in New Hanover County. ADOPTED this the 3rd day of September, 2013. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 2- 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 3 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Joe Suleyman, Environmental Management Director CONTACT(S): Joe Suleyman SUBJECT: Adoption of a Sole Source Resolution to Purchase a New Demo Model Caterpillar 826H Compactor to Replace an Existing Unit Damaged by Fire BRIEF SUMMARY: An equipment fire occurred at the landfill on June 10, 2013, causing extensive damage to one of the landfill's two existing Caterpillar compactors. The damaged unit was already due for extensive repairs this month, and is also scheduled for a complete certified rebuild of the unit during fiscal year 2015, based upon projected hours of service. As an alternative, Gregory Poole has offered a new purchase of a demo unit with only 180 hours of service at a discounted price. We now have four options available for consideration (net costs are shown, after applicable discounts,trade-in credit and insurance proceeds have been applied): 1. Repair fire damaged compactor ($69,747 net cost now plus $500,000 rebuild in FY15. Gross cost for FY14 would be $235,869). 2. Purchase new compactor (net cost $555,640 now. Gross cost before NJPA discount, trade-in credit and insurance proceeds would be $1,005,732 for compactor and warranty). 3. Complete certified rebuild of fire damaged compactor one year earlier than planned (net cost $484,403 now. Gross cost before insurance proceeds would be $650,525). 4. Purchase new demo compactor unit (net cost $533,698 now. Gross cost before applicable NJPA discount, credits and insurance proceeds would be $983,790). Staff recommends option 4: Purchase a new demo compactor unit now, taking advantage of the National Joint Powers Association (NJPA) national purchasing cooperative discount in addition to the Gregory Poole demo unit discount. This will avoid the FY15 expense for a certified rebuild of the unit and will eliminate the 4-6 month delivery lead time for a new compactor purchase, with immediate delivery upon purchase. The damage to the existing compactor has incapacitated the unit, leaving the landfill with only one compactor for daily operations,resulting in the need for costly rental of a compactor(if one is available) for any equipment failures or maintenance down time, adding further to the potential cost of the current situation and potentially impacting landfill operations in the event a rental unit is not available. Funds are available in Environmental Management's Administrative Reserve's existing budget for equipment purchase. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Effective County Management • Increase efficiency and quality of key business processes Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 3-0 RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the resolution for the Sole Source purchase of a new demo compactor from Gregory Poole utilizing the National Joint Powers Association discount. ATTACHMENTS: Sole Source Resolution Quote from Gregory Poole Compactor Options Spreadsheet COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 3-0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION EXCEPTION TO COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, to maintain standardization and compatibility with the current equipment that is owned by the County, Environmental Management is requesting approval to purchase a Caterpillar 826H Compactor from Gregory Poole Equipment Company as a sole source vendor; and WHEREAS, General Statutes 143-129(e)(6) provides that purchases of apparatus, supplies, materials or equipment are exempt from bidding when: A. performance or price competition for a product is not available B. a needed product is available from only one source of supply C. standardization or compatibility is the overriding consideration; and WHEREAS, this exception to the bidding requirements referred to as "Sole Source" must be approved by the Board prior to purchase; and WHEREAS, this purchase of a new demo unit 826H Compactor is a replacement for an existing unit damaged by fire on June 10, 2013; and WHEREAS, the price of the demo unit was obtained using the National Joint Powers Association (NJPA), which is a competitive bidding group purchasing program which offers competitively obtained goods at discount prices to two or more public agencies; and WHEREAS, due to the fact that this is a demo model, the County has been offered an additional discount; and WHEREAS,funds are available in Environmental Management's Administrative Reserve's existing budget for this purchase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners approves the purchase of a Caterpillar 826H Compactor from Gregory Poole Equipment Company as a sole source vendor in accordance with the sole source provisions outlined in GS 143-129(e)(6). ADOPTED this the 3rd day of September, 2013. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 3- 1 - 1 i � � p � i CONSTRUCTION QUOTATION g ,y C !l Customer: New Hanover County Quote No: Address 1: Landfill Date: 6/24/2013 Address 2: 5210 Us Highway 421 N Customer No: 0880400 City/St/Zip WILMINGTON, NC 28401 2252 Prepared By: Bill Poteat County: New Hanover Phone No: (910)520-6704 Phone No: (910)798-4454 Fax No: (910)371-6304 Attention: Mr.Sam Hawes Email: poteat@gregpoole.com We are pleased to submit the following quotation with all standard equipment plus the following attachments: MODEL: CATERPILLAR 826H COMPACTOR all standard equipment and: 48"Stepped Wheels Semi U Bulldozer CAES Ready Engine Coolant Heater Rear Striker Bars, Finger Ready CB Radio Ready PL321 Product Link No Spin Front and Rear Cab with Rubber Mounted Glass Swing Out Stairs Rear Camera Strobe Light Syklone Pre Cleaner Remote Switch High Speed Oil Change Mirrors Intermittent Wiper Radio Fire Extinguisher $624,294.00 1 Year Standard Warranty Total Maintenance and Repair,5 Yr/7500 Hr $117,000.00 Caterpillar Special Demo Unit TOTAL SALES PRICE: $741,294.00 (Price does not include applicable taxes or fees) OTHER ATTACHMENTS&ADDITIONS: Automatic Fire Suppression System ADD: $8,525.00 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 3-2- 1 Gregory Poole Customer Name New Hanover Co. Landfill Dote: 7/26/2013 Model 826H Serial Number AVVF00367 Attn: Sam Hawes REPAIR ESTIMATE VVe sincerely appreciate your quotation request No. and in response thereto, are pleased to submit the following prices F.O.B. Work can begin approximately days after receipt oforder. Segment Description Parts Labor 1 Load/Unload Machine(Machine was disabled on landfill) $ 2,151.70 2 Transport machine to shop $ 1,550.00 3 Clean Machine $ 1,200.00 4 Remove Hood, Guards, Fenders, Belly Pans etc.to inspect damage $ 1,100.00 5 Remove/install Engine $ 4,200.00 6 Repair Engine $ 36,283.00 $ 6,360.00 7 Remove/install Transmission $ 4,800.00 8 Repair Transmission $ 7,986.00 $ 2,000.00 9 Repair Implement, Steering, &Transmission Pump $ 2,268.42 $ 2,256.00 10 Remove/install Cab $ 1,050.00 11 Repair Cab $ 14,726.74 $ 5,250.00 12 Sandblast, Prime, &Paint Cab $ 3,200.00 13 Repair Electrical System(all harnesses from hitch to rear of machine) $ 20,146.13 $ 4,515.00 14 Clean Hydraulic System $ 13,986.04 $ 6,300.00 15 Replace Aftercooler $ 4,430.42 $ 1,680.00 16 Replace Damaged sheet metal, air cleaners, and exterior hardware $ 14,467.34 $ 1,890.00 17 Install Guarding/Belly Pans $ 1,575.00 18 Oils and Misc hardware $ 750.00 Subtotal $115,044.09 1 $ 51,077.70 TOTAL: $ 166,121.79 Prices quoted on this sheet for acceptance within 30 days, but may be changed upon notice. Telephone and verbal orders are to be confirmed TERMS: EXCLUDES TAX, FREIGHT, in writing. We reserve the right to correct stenographic or clerical errors. Deliveries subject to occurrences beyond our control. SUPPLIES,&EPA COMPLIANCE FEE Gregory Poole Equipment Co. Date: 7/30/2013 By: Matt Lanier A firm not to exceed quote may be given after disassembly and inspection. Any additional repairs needed after disassembly will be added to quote. Board of Commissioners Meeting 00XBC013 322 Gregory Poole Customer Name New Hanover Co Landfill Date: 7/20/2013 Model 826H Serial Number AVVF00367 Attn: Sam Hawes REPAIR ESTIMATE VVe sincerely appreciate your quotation request No. and in response thereto, are pleased ho submit the following prices F.O.B. Work can begin approximately days after receipt oforder. Segment Description Parts Labor 'This quote represents additional items found during the*** ***disassembly/quoting of the fire damage*** ***that was not related to the fire*** 2 Repair Differential, Axle, & Final Drives $ 33,500.00 $ 12,600.00 ***Quoted"worst case scenario if needed"without disassembling differential- 3 Additional parts needed for engine $ 7,233.00 $ 4,260.00 4 Additional parts needed for transmission $ 6,054.00 $ 4,000.00 TOTAL: $ 69,747.00 Prices quoted on this sheet for acceptance within 30 days, but may be changed upon notice. Telephone and verbal orders are to be confirmed TERMS: EXCLUDES TAX, FREIGHT, in writing. We reserve the right to correct stenographic or clerical errors. Deliveries subject to occurrences beyond our control. SUPPLIES, &EPA COMPLIANCE FEE Gregory Poole Equipment Co. Date: 7/30/2013 By: Matt Lanier A firm not to exceed quote may be given after disassembly and inspection. Any additional repairs needed after disassembly will be added to quote. Board of Commissioners Meeting Hawes, Sam From: Poteat, Bill <POTEAT @gregpoole.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 1:18 PM To: Hawes, Sam Subject: RE: 826 Demo unit quote New Hanover County June 2013.xlsx List @ $866,557, plus frt, prep, etc @ $13,650, 27% NJPA discount and addl. Cat discount for demo unit @ $21,942. Looks like a deal to me. From: Hawes, Sam [mailto:SHawes @nhcgov.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 1:13 PM To: Poteat, Bill Subject: RE: 826 Demo unit quote New Hanover County June 2013.xlsx That's a significant jump from 2 years ago. What is the discounted amount? Is it possible to reflect that in the quote? Just wanted to double check. From: Poteat, Bill [mailto:POTEAT(a)gregpoole.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:42 PM To: Hawes, Sam Subject: RE: 826 Demo unit quote New Hanover County June 2013.xlsx yes From: Hawes, Sam [mailto:SHawes(.anhcgov.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 12:10 PM To: Poteat, Bill Subject: RE: 826 Demo unit quote New Hanover County June 2013.xlsx Thanks Bill, Does this include the NJPA discount" Sam vv es I Landfill Manager nvironinental Management - Landfill I New Hanover County 5210 U.S, F-lighw y 421 North Wilmington, NC 25401. (9 10) 795-4454 p � (910) 798-4457 l From: Poteat, Bill [mailto:POTEATCabgregpoole.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:33 AM To: Hawes, Sam Subject: 826 Demo unit quote New Hanover County June 2013.xlsx Total Control 'Panel Login To: shawes(a)nhcgov.com Remove this sender from my allow list From:poteatLbgregpoolexom 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 3-2-4 Hawes, Sam From: Poteat, Bill <POTEAT @gregpoole.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 23, 2013 3:34 PM To: Hawes, Sam Subject: 826 Certified Rebuild The purchase price for a Certified Rebuild on your Cat 826 Compactor will be$525,000.00 plus any extended warranty beyond 1 year. Bill Poteat Territory Manager Gregory Poole Equipment Company 151 Backhoe Rd I Leland, NC 28451 Ph. 910-520-6704 1 Fax 910-371-6304 poteat(a)greg Poole.com www.grecorypoole.com ,J Total t"ontro� Panel Login To: shawes(nnhcgov.coin Remove this sender from my allow list From:poteat ci gregpoole.com You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 3-2-5 O i E y O _ 2 D O m o m O O O O r� o o 00 00 O/ co r O 0 0 O v 0, n Z i Ln Ln O Ln � o M L �p O N m 0 LD cOn a0+ M r, Lr " v M m V � c I �-I 00 M t m 00 I c-I v Ln 3 E a v ar o m CL O O .: _ E O O O �° N 3 O O O O M U i i i i i O O N 'a 00 N -1 00 0000 O/ m Ln r I E ++ m O/ D U yC p o o N Z ++ O O O 00 O/ s 7 p O O Ql S m Q. Ln '") O N S l0 O E �o C-0 r, Lr t, Lf N c.7 O to M (In kj. N E a U co cam.,,. 00 s ',. Lr'ni 3 to c � N � 00 _ m s o E °' o ' 3 m 0 o h o D u ri ms's C s M +, u S O L E �o ^ u 3 O �o of a� > o E C + Ln 4� oc o o c co E oo E o o 4 E c L U O �O u N W p L L m c E o -0 L s ~ a� Ln a m c o Ln E L Q L C O N w O O O E U- E -0 c E N N C s +, M -a �-•� N tH L N •� 3 L cn c a O C > o o m — o s o N N J •U r- N +,* Q C E d O N C L * C •• vii N C 4, Q CL ,E N c6 E N O u Q u O c L , M co Q +� U E z N cLo U > N N L > L '^ N L L u C O u O N > U 4- 4� M N Q U c6 U- C a- (C6 C E m O VI VI s L L u O N u M M L C S O O L d Q d +, E �o U u a Ln �, � cc cc E 00 Crlj L L d s z O M N C C co Q •c6 Q 'a��i B�arfo orO sicanerg Meeting v z u o' o' z LL. J o' ()C, 20 3 J 3-3- 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 4 DEPARTMENT: Finance PRESENTER(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher,Finance Director CONTACT(S): Lisa Wurtzbacher,Finance Director; Jim Iannucci, County Engineer; Shawn Ralston,Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Marquis Hills/Heritage Park Interlocal Agreement BRIEF SUMMARY: The communities of Marquis Hills and Heritage Park are ranked number one and two on the high priority list of areas with failing septic tanks in New Hanover County (the "County") by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (the "Authority"). These neighborhoods have had numerous septic tank failures that impact the environment and pose a health risk as well as a financial burden to the residents. The Board of County Commissioners agreed to move forward with a project at its May 6, 2013 meeting to bring sanitary sewer systems to these affected areas. As a part of that meeting, the Board directed staff to prepare an interlocal agreement with the Authority funding engineering and design for approval at a future meeting. An interlocal agreement has been drafted that allows the Authority to partner with the County in this project and details the distribution of costs between the two entities. It notes the total cost of the project to be $16,962,184 with the Authority contributing$4,264,000 through engineering design work and overall project contribution. The County will be responsible for funding the remaining costs of the project. The interlocal agreement between the County and the Authority, in addition to a budget amendment for the Authority's agreed participation amount,was approved by the Authority's Board of Directors on August 14,2013. At the May 6, 2013 meeting, the Board further directed staff to prepare a capital project ordinance for approval at a future meeting. Staff has prepared a capital project ordinance for the project. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Provide health and wellness education,programs, and services RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Recommendation is for the Board to approve the interlocal agreement between the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and the County for the sewer projects in Marquis Hills and Heritage Park communities to eliminate failing septic tanks and to approve the Capital Project Ordinance to set up the project. ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement Capital Project Ordinance COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4-0 Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4-0 New Hanover Contract Number STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER AGREEMENT made as of the day of , 2013 by and between the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, a water and sewer authority organized under General Statutes Chapter 162A ("Authority") and New Hanover County, a political subdivision for the State of North Carolina ("County"); WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County desires to promote expeditious extension of sewer to the below designated Marquis Hills/Heritage Park Project area, presently lacking sewer infrastructure, to address incidents of septic system failure and reduce contamination risk to ground water of surface water runoff and thereby promote public health and safety; WHEREAS,the Authority is unable to provide sewer service to the Project area defined as Marquis Hills/Heritage Park, as more fully set-forth in Exhibit A, without the construction of additions and enhancements to its sewer system consisting of lift stations and mains (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the County has agreed to assist the Authority in the financing and construction of the Project through participation in accordance with the terms of this agreement; WHEREAS, the County has previously secured funding for said Project from the North Carolina State Clean Water State Revolving Fund program (CWSRF); WHEREAS, the County has applied for a grant for Marquis Hills/Heritage Park from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Financing and Construction of the Project. With all reasonable dispatch after the execution of this agreement, the County will, at is sole cost and expense, provide funding necessary to construct public sewer infrastructure including lift stations as may be required and sewer mains and appurtenances in accordance with plans and specifications which shall be developed by the Authority and approved by the County in a principal amount of County participation of $12,698,184 exclusive of interest and financing charges. 2. Financial Oversight. The County shall have financial oversight for the Project including approving bids and all change orders. The Authority shall provide to County status reports on a monthly basis for the Project which includes project to date budget as compared to project to date actual expenditures and explanation of any variances in the project. 3. Schedule. Construction is anticipated to commence on or before Fall 2014 with anticipated completion 2017. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4- 1 - 1 4. Authority Cost Participation. The Authority's cost participation shall not exceed a contribution of $4,264,000 toward the project as follows: Marquis Hills Engineering Design $1,175,000 Marquis Hills Contribution $1,725,000 Marquis Hills Total CFPUA $2,900,000 Heritage Park Engineering Design $744,000 Heritage Park Contribution $620,000 Heritage Park Total Contribution $1,364,000 5. Project Cost Estimates. The total project cost estimate to provide sewer service to the Marquis Hills area is$11,236,425. The total project cost estimate to provide sewer service to the Heritage Park area is $5,725,759. 6. Design Alternatives. If portions of the sewer force main from Heritage Park toward Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant are constructed under other projects or funding agreements, the County's proportionate share of that segment of force main shall be no more than the amount required by the Heritage Park project as a stand-alone agreement. This alternative would only be executed if the proportionate share is eligible for CWSRF funding. 7. Authority Water Project. The Authority may design and install water infrastructure at its expense to make water available to any or all of the Heritage Park Area concurrent with the design and construction contracts of the sewer Project. 8. Acceptance of Project. The Authority will have the Project bid and constructed in accordance with its Plans and Specifications. The Authority shall direct the County to make periodic payments representing approved construction draws together with approved final payment. Upon final acceptance, the Authority will place the Project into operation to collect all domestic sewage from the Project area so long as the Authority owns or operates the Project. 9. Authority Obligations. The Authority shall manage project consultants and contractors for design, award, construction, construction observation and administration for said Project. This project management of consultants and contractors shall be performed without cost to County or Property Owners. The Authority shall also contribute$4,264,000 towards the project either through direct contracts related to sewer design and construction or direct contributions to the County. New Hanover County By: Manager ATTEST Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4- 1 -2 (Seal) Cape Fear Public Utility Authority By: Chief Executive Officer ATTEST (Seal) Approved as to form: Approved as to form: CFPUA Attorney New Hanover County Attorney New Hanover Contract Number NORTH CAROLINA NEW HANOVER COUNTY I, a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the Board,the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its Chairman, sealed with its official seal and attested by herself as its Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal,this_day of_ , 2013. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4- 1 -3 NORTH CAROLINA NEW HANOVER COUNTY I, , a Notary Public of the State and County aforesaid, certify that personally came before me this day and acknowledged that she is Clerk to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the Board, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its Chairman, sealed with its official seal and attested by herself as its Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal,this_day of_ , 2013. NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission Expires: This instrument has been pre-audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. By: By: CFPUA Finance Officer NHC Finance Director Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4- 1 -4 CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE NEW HANOVER COUNTY HERITAGE PARK AND MARQUIS HILLS SEWER EXPANSION PROJECT BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County: 1. New Hanover County (County) is engaged in the Heritage Park and Marquis Hills Sewer Expansion Capital Project, which capital project involves the construction and/or acquisition of capital assets. 2. County desires to authorize and budget for said project in a project ordinance adopted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Section 159-13.2, such ordinance to authorize all appropriations necessary for the completion of said project. 3. The County desires to expend its own funds for the purpose of paying certain costs of the project, for which expenditures the County reasonably expects to reimburse itself from the proceeds of debt to be incurred by the County. 4. This declaration of official intent is made pursuant to Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations to expressly declare the official intent of the County to reimburse itself from the proceeds of debt to be hereinafter incurred by the County for certain expenditures paid by the County on or after the date which is sixty (60) days prior to the date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH THAT: 1. This project ordinance is adopted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute Section 159-13.2. 2. The project undertaken pursuant to this ordinance is the Heritage Park and Marquis Hills Sewer Expansion Capital Project, which project is herewith authorized. 3. The revenue that will finance said project is: Installment Loan Proceeds $16,962,184 Appropriated Fund Balance 339,244 Total $17,301,428 4. The following appropriations necessary for the project are herewith made from the revenue listed above: Capital Project Expense $16,962,184 Administrative Fees 339,244 Total $17,301,428 5. This project ordinance shall be entered in the minutes of the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. Within five days hereof, copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the finance and budget offices in New Hanover County, and with the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners of New Hanover County. Adopted this 3rd day of September, 2013. Sheila L. Schult Woody White, Chairman Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Board of County Commissioners Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 4-2- 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 5 DEPARTMENT: Museum PRESENTER(S): Ruth Haas, Director, Cape Fear Museum of History and Science CONTACT(S): Ruth Haas SUBJECT: Approval of Cape Fear Museum's Request to Offer$1 Off General Adult Admission through AAA BRIEF SUMMARY: Cape Fear Museum would like to offer a discount to all members of the American Automobile Association ("AAA"), Canadian Automobile Association ("CAA"), international motor clubs licensed by AAA that have the ARC SYC! or AAA SYC&S mark on the membership card and to members who present the temporary International SYC&S Discount Card the following discount: $1.00 off general adult admission. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Productive Strategic Partnerships • Deliver value for taxpayer money RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the request,authorize appropriate party to sign the AAA agreement and return to Jennifer Herring. ATTACHMENTS: License Agreement COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5-0 SHOW YOUR CARD & SAVE®CLUB-[Cape Fear Museum] LICENSE AGREEMENT Agreement made on July 31,2013 between AAA Carolinas (Club) located at 6600 AAA Drive, Charlotte, NC 28212 and Cape Fear Museum (Vendor), located at 814 Market Street Wilmington, NC 28401 1) LICENSE TO USE MARK a) Club grants to [Cape Fear Museum] a non-exclusive license to use the service mark Show Your Card & Save®subject to the terms of this Agreement. [Cape Fear Museum] agrees to use the Show Your Card& Save®mark solely for the purpose of identifying itself as a participant in the Show Your Card & Save®("SYC&S") discount program. b) [Cape Fear Museum] grants to Club a non-exclusive license to use [Cape Fear Museum's] trademarks solely for the purpose of this discount program in accordance with the terms and conditions herein. c) [Cape Fear Museum] agrees not to purchase search engine keywords that use the "AAA" trademark or any derivative thereof. [Cape Fear Museum] shall not purchase or register keywords, AdWords, search terms or other identifying terms that include the"AAA" trademark or any derivative thereof for use in any search engine, portal, sponsored advertising service or other search or referral service. In addition, [Cape Fear Museum] shall not use in its meta tags, source codes or other hidden text the "AAA"trademark or any derivative thereof. 2) PROGRAM OFFER a) [Cape Fear Museum] agrees to offer a discount (hereinafter referred to as the "Member Offer") to all members of the American Automobile Association ("AAA"), Canadian Automobile Association ("CAA"), international motor clubs licensed by AAA that have the ARC SYC! or AAA SYC&S mark on the membership card and to members who present the temporary International SYC&S Discount Card (collectively, "Members"). b) [Cape Fear Museum] agrees to offer the following Member Offer: $1.00 off general adult admission c.) [Cape Fear Museum] agrees that the Member Offer granted during the term of this Agreement shall be equal to or better than any continuous discount offered to any other association, corporate group, or organization. d) The Member Offer shall be available at all times. If a better offer is available at time of purchase, such offer shall replace the Member Offer. e) The Member Offer shall be available after validation of a current AAA or CAA membership card. 3) DISPLAY OF MARKS a) Both parties agree not to display or use any of each other's trademarks without the other's prior written consent. Upon written request, each party will immediately cease using any such marks. b) [Cape Fear Museum] agrees to display the Show Your Card& Save®mark only in accordance with the following rules and regulations, and such other rules and regulations as Club may establish from time to time: i) Every display of the mark shall be in substantially the following form or such other form as the Club may establish from time to time: 08/21/13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5- 1 - 1 row d A save Show yGmr and mve. ii) The mark may not be altered, modified, animated or combined with other design elements. iii) The mark must conform to AAA's branding requirements and be approved by Club. iv) The mark may be graphically displayed in television or internet advertising, but may not be audibly represented on television, radio, or the internet other than through expression of the phrase "AAA members Show Your Card& Save." v) The mark display may not be smaller than % inches in height and 1 inch in length on the internet or print advertising, and may not be smaller than 3 inches in height and 4 inches in length on signage. vi) [Cape Fear Museum] shall have no right to use the AAA Emblem or the mark "AAA" apart from the Show Your Card& Save®mark. [Cape Fear Museum] shall not use the AAA/CAA SYC&S mark, or otherwise refer to AAA/CAA or Club, in any advertising, publicity, or promotion except with the prior written consent of Club. c) Promotion of this Agreement outside the territory assigned to Club by AAA is subject to the approval of the club responsible for that territory. Should approval be denied, [Cape Fear Museum] will cease from any future promotion within that club's territory that states or implies approval of that promotion by AAA or by that club. Clubs will notify [Cape Fear Museum] of any such denial as soon as possible. d) Each usage of the mark by [Cape Fear Museum], other than those uses defined above, must be pre- approved by Club. 4.) TRACKING AND REPORTING PROGRAM USAGE a) The following information will be reported by [Cape Fear Museum] regarding usage of [Cape Fear Museum] program: • Total number of Members who made purchases under the Program b) Cape Fear Museum may report the number of members who utilized the discount periodically or when it is requested by the club. 5.) MARKETING COMMITMENT a) Subject to Club's prior approval, [Cape Fear Museum] may place the Show Your Card & Save mark and/or AAA/CAA Member discount in certain [Cape Fear Museum] newspaper, radio, Internet, direct mail and off- site/on-site shows and exhibits, in addition to store brochures, toll-free information lines, and other media print promotions. b) Club agrees to provide the following marketing support: Inclusion into E-Newsletter, Go Magazine SYC&S page, and online. Placement and timeframe of inclusion is at the discretion of the Club. 6.) INTERNET LINKS Cape Fear Museum gives permission to AAA Carolinas to link to their website for the term of this agreement. 08/21/13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5- 1 -2 7.) CONFIDENTIALITY a.) Except as required or allowed by this Agreement, to the extent permitted by law, [Cape Fear Museum] shall not use, copy, divulge any information provided by AAA or Club or any information acquired by [Cape Fear Museum] in the course of performing under this Agreement, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of Members and former Members, without the express written consent of Club. This prohibition applies, among other things, to: i) Use of phone, mail, email, or any other communication to advertise or promote any goods, services, or organizations to Members or former Members; and ii) Sale, rental, or divulgence for another's use of names, addresses, email address, or phone numbers of Members or former Members. iii) Notwithstanding the above, [Cape Fear Museum] may, at times, subject to Club's prior approval, send direct marketing offers (including direct mail and email) to Members and Club employees. iv) The names, addresses and phone numbers of Members and Club employees who make purchases at the [Cape Fear Museum] website become part of[Cape Fear Museum]'s customer base, and accordingly [Cape Fear Museum] may use such information as it would any other Non-Member customer information. v) [Cape Fear Museum] shall not maintain, use, or sell any list or database of Members, unless written permission is granted by Club, except that Cape Fear Museum may maintain mailing lists at Club's discretion on which Members are designated solely for the purpose of excluding such Members from receiving promotional materials. These mailing lists are and shall remain the sole property of Club. vi) [Cape Fear Museum] shall not segment Members who purchase from [Cape Fear Museum] from [Cape Fear Museum]'s other customers for solicitation or marketing, without written approval from Club. Under no circumstances will [Cape Fear Museum] disclose any Confidential Information concerning Club or Members purchasing through this Agreement to any of [Cape Fear Museum]'s divisions or subsidiaries or any third party. vii) All information relating to each party's business, including without limitation the terms of this Agreement, customer lists, marketing techniques, business strategies and sales information, will constitute "Confidential Information." Each party receiving Confidential Information (the "Receiving Party") will hold all Confidential Information of the party disclosing Confidential Information (the "Disclosing Party") in the strictest confidence and will protect all Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party with not less than the same degree of care that the Receiving Party exercises with respect to its own proprietary and confidential information. The Receiving Party will not disclose or otherwise disseminate any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party to any third party, and the Receiving Party will not use any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party for its or his own purpose or benefit. The Receiving Party will, however, have no obligation with respect to Confidential Information that (a) is in the public domain through no act of the Receiving Party, (b) was in the possession of or independently developed by the Receiving Party without any restriction on use or disclosure prior to its disclosure by the Disclosing Party, or (c) is received from a third party without any restriction on use or disclosure and without violation of any obligation to the Disclosing Party. If the Receiving Party is required to disclose any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party by law, governmental regulation, court order or other legal process, it may do so provided that it provides the Disclosing Party prompt advance notice of the apparent obligation to make the disclosure so that the Disclosing Party may seek a protective order or other comparable relief and that the Receiving Party may take such other reasonable steps, at the expense of the Disclosing Party, to protect the confidentiality of the Confidential Information, as may be requested by the Disclosing 08/21/13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5- 1 -3 Party. Neither party will issue any press release or other public announcement relating to this Agreement or the activities contemplated by this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other party. viii)Any customer information or customer data received or collected by [Cape Fear Museum] or Club through or in connection with this Agreement, from visitors sent from Club's web site to [Cape Fear Museum] (collectively the "AAA Customer Data") is, or will be and shall remain, as between [Cape Fear Museum] and Club, the exclusive property of Club and shall be considered and treated as the Confidential Information of Club. [Cape Fear Museum] shall have no right to use for marketing purposes, disclose, or sell such AAA Customer Data without the prior written consent of Club, which may be withheld for any reason or no reason. b) [Cape Fear Museum] represents and warrants that in the performance of this Agreement [Cape Fear Museum], its agents, and employees shall at all times comply with the requirements for cardholder data that are prescribed in the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, as such standard may be amended from time to time. [Cape Fear Museum] agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless AAA, its affiliated motor clubs, and their officers, directors, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, losses, liabilities, obligations, fines, penalties, expenses, and costs (including attorneys' fees and expenses) arising out of or based on any breach of the foregoing representation and warranty. 8.) OTHER Under no circumstances shall either party, its agents or employees be deemed to be the other party's agents or employees. 9.) INSPECTIONS [Cape Fear Museum] agrees that Club may inspect [Cape Fear Museum] 's channels of business to observe the manner in which the Show Your Card & Save@ mark is displayed (if applicable) and to observe the manner in which Members are being served by [Cape Fear Museum]. 10.) DISPUTES [Cape Fear Museum] will, in good faith, endeavor to resolve directly with members any complaints of such Members relating to goods or services furnished by [Cape Fear Museum] in connection the Show Your Card & SaveO program, including complaints about charges. If such good faith efforts are unsuccessful, [Cape Fear Museum] shall cooperate with Club in a join effort to resolve the complaint. 11.) INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE To the extent permitted by law, each party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other party, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, licensees, licensors, officers, directors, agents, employees, successors and assigns from and against all damages, losses and expenses including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising from any suit or claim arising or alleged to have arisen out of the indemnifying party's actions or failure to act in connection with the relationship established by this Agreement, including, but not limited to the breach hereof. Vendor shall maintain occurrence-based general liability insurance, including coverage for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, products liability, contractual liability, and completed operations, sufficient to protect Club, the American Automobile Association, Inc., their officers, directors, agents, and employees, from any such loss, liability, claim, damage, and expense. 12.) TERMINATION This Agreement and the licenses granted to [Cape Fear Museum] and Club shall commence on January 1, 2013 and shall expire December 31, 2015. Furthermore, this Agreement and the licenses granted [Cape Fear Museum] and Club may be terminated by either party at any time upon not less than sixty (60) days prior 08/21/13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5- 1 -4 written notice to the other, provided that [Cape Fear Museum] shall continue to honor the terms of the Member Offer for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the notice. The AAA Emblem and the Show Your Card & Save® mark are the property of the American Automobile Association. Upon expiration or cancellation of this Agreement, both parties agree to discontinue immediately the use of each other's trademarks in any manner whatsoever and to surrender any material containing such marks. During the term of this Agreement, [Cape Fear Museum] shall use the AAA Emblem and the Show Your Card & Save® mark only in conformance with the rules and regulations promulgated by AAA or Club from time to time. It is expressly agreed between the parties that AAA retains full ownership of the Emblem and the Show Your Card & Save® mark and registrations thereof. It is also expressly agreed by both parties, that [Cape Fear Museum] shall retain full ownership of all its marks and registered trademarks. 13.) MISCELLANEOUS a. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred by either party without the other party's prior written consent. b. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, construed under, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of NC. c. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind preceding the date of this Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in this Agreement. ACCEPTED BY: (Name of Club) ([Cape Fear Museum]) By By (NAME, Title) (NAME, Title) Date Date 08/21/13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5- 1 -5 Exhibit A AAA SYC&S PROGRAM USAGE REPORT CONFIDENTIAL DATE: [Cape Fear Museum]: PREPARED BY: PERIOD: MONTH QUARTER YTD OTHER PERIOD ENDING: LOCATION(S): SYC&S ACTIVITY TRANSACTIONS # SALES GROSS $ - SALES NET $ = MEMBER SAVINGS $ METHOD FOR TRACKING SALES: ADDITIONAL KEY INFORMATION % SYC&S SALES VERSUS TOTAL SALES % SALES FOR LOCAL CLUB VERSUS ALL AAA/CAA MEMBERS (if available) % CHANGE TOTAL SALES VS SAME PRIOR PERIOD [Cape Fear Museum] OVERALL PROGRAM SATISFACTION (Scale of 1-10: 10 Being "Very" Satisfied) 08/21/13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 5- 1 -6 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 6 DEPARTMENT: County Attorney PRESENTER(S): Ed McMahon, Sheriff CONTACT(S): Kemp Burpeau, Deputy County Attorney and Sheriff McMahon SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Entering Into Agreements to Extend UNCW Police Territorial Jurisdiction BRIEF SUMMARY: UNCW has requested that the County enter into interlocal agreements with campus law enforcement, authorizing university police to have law enforcement powers off campus. The areas of expanded jurisdiction will include locations such as the Courthouse, Jail, Juvenile Detention Center, Government Center, and Magistrates Office. Campus police will coordinate their activities in the expanded areas with the Sheriff. The agreement does not replace any existing Mutual Aid Agreements. The Sheriff supports the UNCW request. This is a renewal of an Interlocal Agreement originally approved on August 17, 2009. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Increase public safety and crime prevention RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt resolution. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution NHC Contract 14-0091 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: The item was continued. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 6-0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND UNCW POLICE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WHEREAS,pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 116-40.5,the UNCW Board of Trustees has established a Campus Law Enforcement Agency and employs campus police officers; and WHEREAS,pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 116-40.5(a), the Campus Law enforcement Agency has territorial jurisdiction for property owned or leased by the University and that portion of any public road or highway passing through such property, wherever located and immediately adjoining it; and WHEREAS, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes 116-40.5(b) and(c)the UNCW Board of Trustees may enter into agreements with the governing boards of municipalities and counties to extend the law enforcement authority of campus police officers into all or any part of a respective municipality or county juri sdiction beyond the property owned or leased by the university and that portion of any public road or highway passing through such property and immediately adjoining it; and WHEREAS, the UNCW Board of Trustees has determined that a limited extension of jurisdiction in certain circumstances may be necessary for the effective law enforcement for the protection of the campus and its students, faculty, staff and visitors; and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners and Sheriff of New Hanover County are agreeable to such limited UNCW law enforcement extensions of jurisdiction pursuant to the terms and conditions of an interlocal agreement. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is hereby authorized to enter into an interlocal agreement with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington to extend law enforcement jurisdiction of campus police officers when on duty into certain areas of New Hanover County, and to determine the circumstances in which an extension and exercise of authority may occur pursuant to such interlocal agreement. ADOPTED this the 3rd day of September, 2013. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 6- 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY CONTRACT#14-0091 JOINT AGREEMENT TO EXTEND LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT WILMINGTON This Agreement entered this_day of 2013, by and between the County of New Hanover, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina and an agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "University." WHEREAS,the University has established a campus law enforcement agency pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §116-40.5(a)which gives university police officers all the powers of law enforcement officers generally and territorial jurisdiction over all property owned or leased by the University and that portion of any public road or highway passing through such property and immediately adjoining it, wherever located; WHEREAS,there is a close working relationship between the County and the University with respect to the function of law enforcement,which both parties desire to maintain; WHEREAS,the University and County recognize the need of the Campus Law Enforcement Agency to have a limited extension of its law enforcement authority beyond the territorial boundaries of the campus and those boundaries established by N.C.G.S. §116-40.5(a) and to determine the circumstances in which an extension of authority may be granted; WHEREAS, under North Carolina General Statute §116-40.5(c),the University's Board of Trustees desires to enter into an agreement with the governing board of New Hanover County to extend the law enforcement authority of campus police officers beyond property owned or leased by the University and that portion of any public road or highway passing through such property and immediately adjoining it; WHEREAS,the Board of Trustees of the University has authorized the Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs on behalf of the University to enter into a written agreement to extend the jurisdiction of the Campus Law Enforcement Agency pursuant to N.C.G.S. §116-40.5 (c) into certain portions of New Hanover County and under certain circumstances; WHEREAS,the Sheriff of New Hanover County has consented to extend the jurisdiction of the Campus Law Enforcement Agency pursuant to N.C.G.S. §116-40.5(c); WHEREAS, the governing board of New Hanover County has authorized the Chairman on behalf of New Hanover County to enter into this joint agreement for such extension of jurisdiction with the University; and NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual interests,the County and the University agree that when the Campus Law Enforcement Agency's officers are on duty that they shall have all the powers vested in law enforcement officers by charter, policy, regulation, North Carolina statute or common law within New Hanover County in the following locations and circumstances. 1.0 Definitions 1.1 "Campus" shall mean all property owned or leased by the University with or adjacent to: 1.1.1 601 S. College Road as generally bounded by Randall Drive, College Acres Drive, Clear Run Drive, McMillan Avenue, Mallard Drive and Rose Avenue; 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 6-2- 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY CONTRACT#14-0091 1.1.2 630 North MacMillan Avenue, and University-owned real property adjoining it; 1.1.3 803 S. College Road 1.1.4 the Center for Marine Science located at Marvin K. Moss Lane and certain properties located along Holt Road; 1.1.5 720 and 737 St.James Avenue; 1.1.6 Kenan House and Wise House located at 1705 and 1713 Market Street; 1.1.7 No. 8 North 17th Street 1.1.8 1700 Princess Street 1.1.9 4762 and 4758 College Acres Dr; and 1.1.10 Various leased properties. 1.2 "Campus Law Enforcement Agency" shall mean the UNCW Police Department. 1.3 "Head of Campus Law Enforcement Agency" shall mean the Chief of Police for the UNCW Police Department. 1.4 "NHSO" refers to the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office. 2.0 Extension of Authority of Campus Law Enforcement Agency beyond University Campus 2.1 The Campus Law Enforcement Agency shall have full law enforcement authority and jurisdiction when on duty in the following locations: 2.1.1 New Hanover County Courthouse, 316 Princess Street 2.1.2 New Hanover County Jail and Sheriff's Patrol Facility, 3950 Juvenile Center Road, Castle Hayne 2.1.3 Vice and Narcotics Office of the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office, 104 North 4th Street 2.1.4 Detective Division of the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office, 104 North 4th Street 2.1.5 New Hanover Regional Medical Center to include the Behavioral Health Hospital 2.1.6 Cape Fear Hospital 2.1.7 New Hanover Regional Juvenile Detention Center, 3830 Juvenile Center Road, Castle Hayne 2.1.8 North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 138 North 4th Street 2.1.9 New Hanover County Government Center, 230 Government Center Drive 2.1.10 Any Magistrate Office 2.1.11 When traversing between campus locations 2.1.12 The area of New Hanover County bounded by Shoemakers Lane, Masonboro Loop Road, Hidden Valley Road, S. College Road, Piner Road, Peden Point Road, and the IntraCoastal Waterway. 2.2 The Campus Law Enforcement Agency shall have full law enforcement jurisdiction when transporting a person in custody to or from any place within New Hanover County for that person to attend criminal court proceedings. 2.3 The Campus Law Enforcement Agency shall have full law enforcement authority and jurisdiction when on duty within New Hanover County when the Campus Law Enforcement Agency has an arrest warrant or order for arrest, or has knowledge of an outstanding order for arrest or an arrest warrant, charging an individual with an offense that was committed on University owned or leased property. 2.4 While on duty within the expanded boundaries pursuant to this Agreement, officers of the Campus Law Enforcement Agency shall have the same jurisdiction, powers, rights, privileges, and immunities as they normally possess. 2.5 The Head of Campus Law Enforcement Agency, or designee, agrees to immediately notify the NHSO whenever he has reason to believe that a felony has occurred or is occurring within an area identified in 2.1 above or when they are in hot pursuit of a suspect within an area identified in 2.1 above. 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 6-2-2 NEW HANOVER COUNTY CONTRACT#14-0091 2.6 The Head of Campus Law Enforcement Agency, or designee, shall notify NHSO of the intent to execute warrants and other legal papers off the Campus of the University and within the area identified in 2.1. 2.7 Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting or reducing NHSO's, any other law enforcement agency or any officer's common law or statutory authority conferred by the North Carolina General Statutes. 2.8 Nothing contained herein shall be construed as placing additional law enforcement responsibilities upon Campus Law Enforcement Agency 2.9 Campus Law Enforcement Agency will not conduct routine patrols in area of expanded jurisdiction 2.10 Campus Law Enforcement Agency will normally limit its enforcement activity in the area of expanded jurisdiction to crimes occurring in the campus officer's presence that threaten the safety of persons or property 2.11 Campus Law Enforcement Agency will not respond to routine calls for service in area of expanded jurisdiction 2.12 Campus Law Enforcement Agency will notify NHSO of arrests made by Campus Law Enforcement Agency in area of expanded jurisdiction for Part I Index Crimes 3.0 Authorization for Law Enforcement Joint Agreements 3.1 On April 24, 2009,the Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington authorized by resolution the Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs to enter into an agreement with the County to extend the law enforcement authority of the Campus Law Enforcement Agency pursuant to N.C.G.S. §116- 40.5(c). See Resolution attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement and incorporated by reference. 3.2 On August 17, 2009,the governing board for New Hanover County authorized the Chairman to enter into an agreement with the University to extend its law enforcement jurisdiction to designated areas beyond the Campus pursuant to N.C.G.S. §116-40.5(c). See Resolution attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement and incorporated by reference. 4.0 Terms 4.1 This Agreement shall be effective at 12:00 a.m. on August26, 2013 and shall continue for a period of five years, until 11:59 p.m. on August 25, 2018. 4.2 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the other party and for any reason. 4.3 This Agreement may be amended only in writing and signed by the parties' authorized representatives. 4.4 It is agreed that the University, its officers, employees, and agents have no employment relationship, joint venture nor partnership with the County. At all times while operating under the provisions of this Agreement,the Campus Law Enforcement Agency's employees shall remain university employees under the direct supervision and control of the University. 4.5 Without waiving sovereign immunity,the University shall remain responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, employees and agents with regard to the implementation of this Agreement, subject to the limits, procedures and provisions of the North Carolina Tort Claims Act, N.C.G.S. §143-291, et seq. 4.6 This Agreement does not supersede or replace any Mutual Aid Agreement that may be in place or created subsequently between the parties, which is a separate and distinct document and intended for other purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the first date written above. 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 6-2-3 NEW HANOVER COUNTY CONTRACT#14-0091 University of North Carolina Wilmington: BY: Charles Maimone Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs New Hanover County: Edward J. McMahon Sheriff Chairman New Hanover County Board of Commissioners 4 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 6-2-4 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 7 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Michelle Harrell, Collector of Revenue CONTACT(S): Michelle Harrell SUBJECT: Approval of July 2013 Tax Collection Reports BRIEF SUMMARY: Tax collection reports for the month of July 2013 are submitted for approval. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve the reports. ATTACHMENTS: July 2013 Collection Reports COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 7-0 Ln I, ri m r, ; 00 M M O ri N I, r- M O lO 00 �t Rt M N Ol M 00 Rt O N N O Ln I-� Ln M oo N M 00 O N Ln 00 00 I- c-I O to Rt O N r- lO r-I O 00 Rt N N Rt lO r-I 00 N Ln r-I I- F I� 00 Ol RZF c I M 00 00 O Ol v O c I C N 0 r v r ry) o N 00 00 to r-I M C Ol Ol Rt Ln Ln Ln Ln O M -1 O O U U t/)- t/)- Ol 0 c I M M to oo Ln M to M O M to m Ln m N Rt 00 Ln r� Ln Ln r-I O L o r- M r- Ln c l Ln o0 4 N o0 N c-I 0 Rt N to to N Ol N - O Rt M N N Ol Ol to M N ri M I" to r- M c I U l0 00 O c I Ln U O I� N � Ol S O Ol r, N \ S to Ln 00 to c-I N Ln O N R:J -::I N r-I > c-I c-I c-I > N N N L � L cO M OO C C Ol Ol TI- Ln O Ln Ln Ln M I-, to r-I r-I Gl I N 00 Ln N N 0l O N c-I r-I rn r- ' >, -:I- N N O to Ln Ln 4, TI- 00 Ln 4, r-I N M 00 r-I M I- I� N N 1 c-I N M 00 Q to to M M Q 00 00 M RZF c-I O o O ri r-I r-I O 00 to N N N f6 rj f6 C Ln C O O cm L L rq 0 d d N 3 L I� r" Ln M N O to c-I O I� r-I Ol N O N Rt Ln •~ Ol � � Ol � � Ol � N c-I � O N Ol I� � i N N N to O to O to I- O Ln Ln Ln N I, Ln ri 00 N a(6 c-I c-I 00 O O O O to N r- �o N Rt Rt N O0 W CF) W O M M M r c-I I O c-I V O N O U T O ar 'a v 0A +' v C R C O N R M U 0 p m O p p m i N O m L U p O m to N> � 4- � 4' N G/ N C G/ C C 'a C i R N j C 'a m ++ m E m o o - -W ai E J ° p x N i _ N U O 3 O L U -0 -0 O O 3 Z U Ln Q Q H U O U a cn Q Q H U O Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 7- 1 - 1 00 I, O -1 -1 l0 c I I, N to O M M O O N l0 �t Ln 00 O c-I N O 00 00 Ln Ln r-I l6 I-� r-I O l6 Ln 00 r-I I-� 00 r-I M 00 6 r-I r-I Rt rl N O M N r-I r-I N Ln N Ln Ln O M N Ln 00 Rt Rt Ol Ol Ln Ol M M M v Ol 00 00 c-I v Lr c-I r-I r-I M I� \ 00 00 M Ln M Ln N N N E E O O O U U Ol I� O N E l0 m r-I Rt N M M N c I N N l0 l0 00 00 00 00 00 O 0l ri I� ri r- r- ci c-I O LfI Ri l0 LfI 00 00 O Ri Ri c-I 00 Rt N O r-I lO lO O Ln Ri r-I O O -:I- l0 m N Ln 00 Ln M 00 m Ln M s v 0 °° ° v Rt o m C N o a) ri ri lO a) ri ri ri > I- > L � L cO M OO C C I� r M r, Ln N al O M Ol M 0 O lO Rt 00 r� lO r-I lO 00 00 �` LfI LfI LfI Ol �` LfI LfI c-I O l0 O _ ri r-I O _ O N M lb ri Ln lO N a) a) Ln N I- lO O Q Q 3 0 o 0 Ol Ol Ol d rn d O (6 .F C C +, O O i Ln Ln O C a a OC O ++ N N N M 00 Ln 00 Ol 00 O N i i i i i c-I i N R Ln 00 c-I M M M 00 I- ri M M 00 Rt p r- O Ln 00 U o O O MR:j rn Ln >. +' rn rn rn +' Ln Ln o Rt � O O O l0 l0 r-I Ln +, 0 m m m O Ln w rl O LU o � o .y QJ LL N > O QJ r-I QJ QJ tm +, R C N R U O m M i N = 0 0�0 u U p 0 0�0 U > +' 4' Ln d Ln 4� 4' Ln O O O O C QJ QJ i C C >• QJ R ++ O R .2 � 0 .0 Q) O O > .0 w CO E 0 ++ QJ E E J � 0 ar 2 \_ O ~ U a) 4a U O i _ O N U a) O 2 + m a) +� Ln a) +1 = a) +� Ln / L 0 'L D O 0 M �+ � 'L +' D O 3 L.) 'a O O 3 O L U - O O 3 z v Q Q v O v a Q Q u O Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 7- 1 -2 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM: 8 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin SUBJECT: Approval of Board of Education Budget Amendment BRIEF SUMMARY: On August 6, 2013 the Board of Education approved General Fund Amendment #1 which recorded the carrryover of outstanding purchase orders in several departments,balances in special project funds allocated to Operations and Facility Planning,and the remaining K-8 Online Science Textbook budget. With the approval of this budget amendment the amount of Board of Education Fund balance appropriated in FY13-14 is$4.7 million. Board of Education staff estimated they would have $21,400,000 in General Fund Balance at the end of FY12-13 and appropriated $3,622,000 to balance their FY13-14 budget. This left them with estimated unreserved fund balance of$17,778,000 on July 1, 2013 (8%of their operating budget). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Support programs to improve educational performance RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Approve Board of Education Budget Amendment#1. ATTACHMENTS: NHC BOE General Fund Amendment 1 General Fund Cummulative Budget Summary COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:(only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 8-0 New Hanover County Board of Education General Fund Amendment#1 Be it resolved by the New Hanover County Board of Education that the following amendments be made to the Budget Resolution for the fiscal year ending June 30,2014,on the 6th day of August,2013: Increasel(Decrease) Expenditures by Purp uncti : Instructional services: Regular Instruction $ 446,284.00 Special Populations - Allemative Programs - " School Leadership - Co-Curricular 1,072.14 School-Based Support 2,034.07 System-wide support services: Support and Development $ - Spedal Population Support and Development Altemative Program Support and Development - Technology Support 18,871.14 Operational Support 425,813.57 Financial and Human Resources 15%999.75 Accountability - SysternrWide Pupil Support Policy,Leadership and Public Relations 22,375. Ancillary: Community Services Nutrition Services Non-programmed Charges: Payments to Other Govemrrnts $ - Interfund Transfers Scholarships - $ 1,076, .67 Revenue by Source: New Hanover County $ - Federal Sources Other Revenues Fund Balance Appropriation 1,076,449.67 1,076, .67 Explanation: To record canyover lbr outstanding mhese orders in several departments.balances in special prcVect funds allotted to Operations and F arming,and Me remaining K-8 Online Science Textbooks budget, Total Appropriation in Current Budget $ 70,650,501.00 Amount of In a ( crea )of above Amendment 1076, .67 Total Appropriation in Current Amended Budget $ 71,7 6, 67 Passed by majorKy vote of the Board of Education of New Hanover County on the day of 20_L,2, . Chairmen,Board of Education i Secreffir,96ard of Education J U Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 8- 1 - 1 General Fund Cummulative Budget Summary., Current Budget Amendment#1 Revised Budget Expenditures by Purpose/Function: Instructional services: Regular Instruction $ 19,983,057.18 $ 446,284.00 $ 20,429,341.18 Special Populations 2,365,015.51 - 2,365,015.51 Alternative Programs 1,394,331.12 1,394,331.12 School Leadership 5,460,464.03 - 5,460,464.03 Co-Curricular 1,907,600.56 1,072.14 1,908,672.70 School-Based Support 5,065,634.46 2,034.07 5,067,668.53 $ 36,176,102.86 $ 449,390.11 $ 36,615,493.07 System-wide support services: Support and Development $ 1,508,996.43 $ - $ 1,508,996.43 Special Population Support and Development 463,330.68 463,330.68 Altemative Program Support and Development 241,449.74 - 241,449.74 Technology Support 4,560,399.25 18,871.14 41579,270.39 Operational Support 17,566,158.09 425,813.57 17,991,971.66 Financial and Human Resources 4,427,948.96 159,999.75 4,587,948.71 Accountability 215,561.85 - 215,561.85 System-Wide Pupil Support 543,457.79 - 543,457.79 Policy,Leadership and Public Relations 1,580,062.35 22,375.00 1,602,437.35 $ 31,107,365.14 $ 627,059.46 $ 31,734,424.60 Ancillary: Community Services $ - $ - $ Nutrition Services 215,533.00 - 215,533.00 $ 115,533.00 $ - $ 215,533.00 Non-programmed Charges: Payments to Other Governments $ 1,700,000.00 $ - $ 1,700,000.00 interfund Transfers 1,443,500.00 - 1,443,500.00 Scholarships 8,000.00 - 8,000.00 $ 3,151,500.00 $ - $ 3,151,500.00 $ 70,650,501.00 $ 1,076,449.67 $ 71,726,950.67 Revenue by Source: New Hanover County $ 64,740,640.00 $ - $ 64,740,640.00 Federal Sources 10,000.00 - 10,000.00 Other Revenues 2,277,740.00 - 2,277,740.00 Fund Balance Appropriation 3,622,121.00 1,076,449.67 4,698,570.67 $ 70,650,501.00 $ 1,076,449.67 $ 71,726,950.67 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 8-2- 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 CONSENT ITEM. 9 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Cam Griffin, Budget Director CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin SUBJECT: Adoption of Budget Amendments BRIEF SUMMARY: The following budget amendments amend the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. 14-010 Senior Resource Center Sequestration Reductions 14-011 Carryover of Funds for Uncompleted Projects from FY 12-13 to FY13-14 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Strong Financial Performance • Control costs and manage to the budget RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the ordinance for the Budget amendment listed. ATTACHMENTS: Budget Amendment 14-010 Budget Amendment 14-011 COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 9-0 AGENDA: September 3,2013 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 14- 010 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County,North Carolina, that the following Budget Amendment 14-010 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30,2014. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment Strategic Focus Area: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education Strategic Objective(s): Provide health/wellness education,programs, and services Fund: General Fund Department: Senior Resource Center Expenditure: Decrease Increase Senior Resource Center $62,599 Total $62,599 $0 Revenue: Decrease Increase Grant Revenue $62,599 0 Total , Section 2: Explanation This budget amendment will reduce several Senior Resource Center grant funded programs. The Family Caregiver Program was reduced by$7,000 and the Senior Health Insurance Information Program(SHIIP) was reduced by$3,604. The Home and Community Care Block Grant was reduced by$51,995. This will result in a reduction of 10 Home Delivered Meal clients, and 5 Congregate Meal clients. Training and travel expenses will also be reduced by$2,000. All of these reductions are due to sequestration. Section 3: Documentation of Adoption This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County,North Carolina,that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 14-010, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30,2014,is adopted. Adopted,this 3rd day of September,2013. (SEAL) Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 9- 1 - 1 AGENDA: September 3,2013 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET BY BUDGET AMENDMENT 14- 011 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County,North Carolina,that the following Budget Amendment 14-011 be made to the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30,2014. Section 1: Details of Budget Amendment Strategic Focus Area: Strong Financial Performance Strategic Objective(s): Control costs and manage the budget Fund: General Fund Department: Expenditure: Decrease Increase Economic Development $572,336 DSS $116,123 Property Management $130,000 Nondepartmental $5,000 Total $0 Ir $823,459 Revenue: Decrease Increase General Fund Appropriated Balance $823,459 Total $0 $823,459 Section 2: Explanation To appropriate General Fund balance for budgeted items that were not completed in FY 12-13. Appropriated fund balance after this transaction will be$9,731,348. Downtown Wilmington,Inc.-During the budget review staff was directed to increase funding for Wilmington Downtown,Inc. by$12,500 through appropriating unspent economic development funds. Economic Development-Unspent Economic Development funds are recommended to be carried over from FY12-13 to FY13-14 to enhance efforts. County Wellness Program awarded$5,000 in statewide Fitness Challenge at end of FY 12-13. DSS- Supplies,Funds to complete automation enhancement effort, special child incentives(Federal Funds), and Family Support Program(IV-D Funds). Property Management(Sheriff/Animal Control)-Funds to air-condition Animal Control as required by the Animal Welfare Act, 02 NCAC 52J.0202(a). Section 3: Documentation of Adoption This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of New Hanover County,North Carolina,that the Ordinance for Budget Amendment 14-011, amending the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30,2014,is adopted. Adopted,this 3rd day of September,2013. (SEAL) Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 9-2- 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 REGULAR ITEM. 10 DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Linda Lytvinenko, Executive Director, Cape Fear Literacy Council CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Literacy Awareness Month and International Literacy Day Proclamation BRIEF SUMMARY: Erin Diener Payne is the Community Outreach and Volunteer Management Coordinator for Cape Fear Literacy Council. She has submitted a proclamation to recognize September 2013 as Literacy Awareness Month and September 8, 2013 as International Literacy Day in New Hanover County. As a matter of information,the Board appropriated$5,000 to Cape Fear Literacy Council for the current fiscal year. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: Literacy Awareness Proclamation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 10-0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LITERACY AWARENESS MONTH AND INTERNATIONAL LITERACY DAY PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Cape Fear Literacy Council, in conjunction with ProLiteracy, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), and thousands of community-based literacy organizations, is celebrating September as "Literacy Awareness Month" and September 8th as "International Literacy Day"; and WHEREAS, since 1985, Cape Fear Literacy Council has provided tutoring and classes in reading, writing, spelling, math and English communication to thousands of New Hanover County adults; and WHEREAS, the National Adult Literacy Survey indicates that over 61,000 adults in New Hanover County are at low levels of literacy and may struggle to use printed and written information to function in society, achieve their goals, and develop their potential; and WHEREAS, these adults may have difficulty securing jobs and a livable wage for themselves and their families, may not have access to adequate health care because they lack the necessary reading and life skills, may struggle to be effectively involved in their children's education and may have difficulty becoming fully engaged in their communities; and WHEREAS, the best indicator of a child's success in school is whether his/her mother reads, children whose parents have higher literacy skills do better in school, and the future of our community depends on the literacy levels of our adults and children; and WHEREAS, Cape Fear Literacy Council provides a variety of complementary learning opportunities for both acquiring and improving skills and meeting short-term and long-term individualized goals: self-paced computer learning, study skills and writing classes, GED preparation, citizenship preparation, out-of-the-classroom community-based learning, and special topic classes as indicated by students' needs; and WHEREAS, Cape Fear Literacy Council helps over 500 adult learners each year improve their job potential and performance, their community involvement, their families' quality of life, and their own ability to reach their goals and potential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that September 2013 be recognized as "Literacy Awareness Month" and September 8, 2013 be recognized as "International Literacy Day" in New Hanover County; and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the members of the Board of Commissioners pledge themselves and challenge their fellow citizens to work to eliminate illiteracy in New Hanover County. ADOPTED this the 3rd day of September, 2013. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Shult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 10- 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 REGULAR ITEM. 11 DEPARTMENT: County Manager PRESENTER(S): Foster Norman,CoastalCare Area Director and CEO CONTACT(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of Recovery Month Proclamation BRIEF SUMMARY: Recovery Month is designed to empower people in recovery and educate our community about how substance use disorders affect all people in the community, including public safety officials, the workforce, older adults, and families. CoastalCare Area Director Foster Norman will be present to receive the proclamation to recognize that substance use disorders are treatable and recovery is possible. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Superior Public Health, Safety and Education • Keep the public informed on important information RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Adopt the proclamation. ATTACHMENTS: Recovery Month Proclamation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 11 -0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RECOVERY MONTH PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, addiction and mental illnesses are diseases, and mental health is an essential part of overall wellness; and WHEREAS, prevention of substance use disorders works, and effective treatment can help people recover from alcohol and drug addiction and mental health disorders; and WHEREAS, the benefits of preventing and overcoming substance use and/or mental health disorders are vital to individuals, families and the community at large; and WHEREAS,people in recovery achieve healthy lifestyles,both physically and emotionally; and WHEREAS, more than 20 million Americans are dependent on illicit drugs and/or alcohol according to the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health,and one in five Americans will experience a mental health issue this year; and WHEREAS, the cost of untreated and mistreated mental illness and addictive disorders to American businesses, governments and families has grown to over$100 billion annually; and WHEREAS, community-based services that respond to the needs of the individual and family are cost-effective and beneficial; and WHEREAS, recognition is due to those who have achieved long-term recovery, as is sharing with others how recovery can positively benefit one's life; and WHEREAS, Recovery Month is observed every September nationwide by advocacy organizations to raise awareness and understanding of issues related to substance use and mental health disorders, and to eliminate the stigma associated with seeking substance use and mental health services NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners that September 2013 be recognized as "Recovery Month" in New Hanover County. The Board calls upon the citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions, businesses, and schools in New Hanover County to recommit to increasing awareness and understanding of mental illness and the need for accessible services for all people who suffer from mental disorders. ADOPTED this the 3rd day of September, 2013. NEW HANOVER COUNTY Woody White, Chairman ATTEST: Sheila L. Schult, Clerk to the Board Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 11 - 1 - 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 REGULAR ITEM. 12 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Ken Vafier, Senior Zoning Compliance Official and Chris O'Keefe,Planning& Inspections Director(Planning Board Rep: Richard Collier, Chairman) CONTACT(S): Ken Vafier; Shawn Ralston,Planning Manager; and Chris O'Keefe SUBJECT: Public Hearing Text Amendment (A-412, 05113)- Request by Staff to Amend Section 71-1(9) of the Zoning Ordinance to Provide Clarification as to When Staff May Review Administratively a Minor Modification for an Approved Special Use Permit or Rezoning BRIEF SUMMARY: It is becoming more common for development proposals to utilize our conditional zoning tools. These tools require that a site plan be approved as the zoning district ordinance. Currently small changes to approved setbacks require applicants to undergo a complete review through public hearings at both Planning Board and County Commission meetings. Staff proposes that for changes that amount to 10%or less than the approved setback, staff may approve the change provided it meets the minimum setbacks prescribed in the ordinance. At their May 2,2013 meeting,the Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the text amendment. No one from the public spoke in support or in opposition of the proposed amendment. This item was continued from the June 3, 2013 Board of Commissioners meeting, but directed at agenda review on July 11, 2013 to come forward for consideration at the September 3 meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Intelligent Growth and Economic Development • Implement plans for land use,economic development,infrastructure and environmental programs • Understand and act on citizen needs Effective County Management • Increase efficiency and quality of key business processes • Understand and act on citizen needs • Deliver value for taxpayer money RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff recommends approval. ACTION NEEDED: Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 12-0 1. Approve as recommended; or 2. Approve with changes; or 3. Continue for further information; or 4. Deny the amendment. ATTACHMENTS: A-412 Script A-412 Staff Summary COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Recommend approval. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Approved 4-0. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 12-0 SCRIPT FOR TEXT AMENDMENT A-412, 05/13 REQUEST BY STAFF TO AMEND SECTION 71-1 (9) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND QUALIFYING MODIFICATIONS. CHAIRMAN 1. This is a public hearing. We will first hear a presentation from staff. Then proponents of the text amendment and opponents of the text amendment will each be allowed 15 minutes total to speak. An additional 5 minutes of rebuttal will be allowed for each side. 2. Open the public hearing. a. Staff Presentation b. Proponent's presentation (up to 15 minutes) C. Opponent's presentation (up to 15 minutes) d. Proponent's rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) e. Opponent's rebuttal (up to 5 minutes) 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Commissioner discussion 5. Is there a motion to find that this text amendment to the ordinance is consistent with the land use plan and is reasonable and in the public interest and should be adopted? Motion: Second: Vote: Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 12- 1 - 1 A 412 AMENDMENT TO THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE APPLICANT: STAFF Staff proposes to amend Sections 71-1 and 112-7 to clarify what modifications can be handled administratively. Proposed changes are in red. The Planning Board voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the amendment during their May 2, 2013 meeting. Section 71: Special Use Permits Issued by the Board of County Commissioners 71-1: General Requirements (9) The original applicant(s), their successors or their assignee may make minor changes in the location and/or size of structures provided the necessity for these changes is clearly demonstrated. Minor changes shall be reviewed by the Planning and Inspections Department and upon favorable recommendation by the Planning and Inspections Director may be approved by the C ,+ o sag alr rsxr is tC)s. Such approval shall not be granted should the proposed revisions cause or contribute to: (A) A change in the character of the development. (B) A change of design for, or an increase in the hazards to pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation, or (C) A fdiiii-rr CrxiCrrtxCr in the originally approved setbacks from roads and/or property lines 9x90 diirrg tr � pCr°CCrrt. (5/4/81) Section 112-7: Administrat ve Review ( _ M r. - Carr �>Cs irade to ar approved VC)r G .t.Cr r. or r ;- D,St.-:Ct. t(`od r.r o a Us D St:-:Cta fxCr;°dor:a D skT or:4,- D Str,Ct. Plarmed D rC o rir:Cr t D St:-.Cta 0- R e.f- r t M,'xed Use D qtr, t s'nall be cord sid r d .r t'he sairie friar t e as that t,�s d 60- � i e a Use P Cri r,,t s as sCt 19 L'n r ecdor , £ (9), rkny reqt,�est "or a char gr; to ar,. approved or _r g D qtr Ct. ('or,. :t or all Use L tMt. f:ceptior:a D s.g� orr: r g L� St .Cta L�r t.CC L�e r C C rir Cr t L� St:.Cta C: �ve.f- r t M,'xed Use D St r,'Ct that does r C)t qt m t as a 1r C) : r . char,- d�t,a, r tb pmvisior s 01 se t or " £-1(9) of t'h or)r g Ordi'r m:ce s'na'11 be st,� n-,&ted as a r w t zor, g iriap a irier,rdir:Cr t rr pl.hic rt Cyr . 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 12-2- 1 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3,2013 REGULAR ITEM: 13 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Martin Sanford,PE,BCEE,Principal Environmental Engineer,CDM Smith CONTACT(S):Joe Suleyman,Environmental Management Director SUBJECT: Presentation by CDM Smith,Inc.,Regarding the Phase I Evaluation of the Current Countywide Solid Waste and Recycling Programs, Community and Stakeholder Outreach, and an Evaluation of Waste Management Strategies,Technologies and Processes BRIEF SUMMARY: Phase I of the consulting services for the development of a comprehensive solid waste management plan has been completed. Martin Sanford, PE, BCEE, Principal Environmental Engineer, CDM Smith, Inc., will present a summary overview of the Phase I report. This initial Phase included an evaluation of the current countywide solid waste and recycling programs, community and stakeholder outreach, and an evaluation of waste management strategies, technologies and processes. A Phase I report has been prepared for presentation to the Board for review and recommendations. Moving forward, Phase 11 will involve the development of a strategic plan based upon Board direction and will culminate in a final report and presentation to the Board with recommendations for implementation. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Effective County Management • Leverage technology and information to enable performance RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Acceptance of the Phase I report from CDM Smith Inc., containing an evaluation of the current countywide solid waste and recycling programs, and issuance of direction for Phase 11 development of a strategic plan. ATTACHMENTS: Phase I Presentation COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:(only Manager) Accept the Phase I report and provide staff and CDM Smith direction for Phase II. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Heard presentation. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 13-0 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 REGULAR ITEM. 14 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager; Avril Pinder, Assistant County Manager CONTACT(S): Avril Pinder and Beth Schrader, Strategy &Policy Manager SUBJECT: Presentation and County Manager Recommendation for Health & Human Services Organization and Governance BRIEF SUMMARY: In June 2012, the North Carolina General Assembly passed HB438 (S.L. 2012-126) which gave county commissioners additional options for organizing and governing county human services agencies. Under the new law, a board of county commissioners has the option to assume the powers and duties of certain boards, create a consolidated human services agency, or take both actions. Prior to enacting this change, some of these options had been limited only to counties with populations exceeding 425,000. In January 2013, the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners directed staff to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of health and human services in New Hanover County and evaluate four (4)potential business models. Due to the complexity of issues under consideration, a 14 member multi- disciplinary Health& Human Services Study Group was assembled to assist staff with the analysis. On June 6, 2013, the Health & Human Services Study Group informally presented its findings and recommendations to the County Manager. A comprehensive written Study Group report followed (which is attached). Based on conversations with the Study Group, the report findings, and subsequent additional analysis, the County Manager will present a recommendation for the most appropriate health and human services business and service delivery model for New Hanover County. This is an information only item;no action requested. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Effective County Management • Increase efficiency and quality of key business processes • Understand and act on citizen needs • Deliver value for taxpayer money RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Hear staff presentation and County Manager's recommendation. TT , ..,.. ..Tr_ Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-0 Copy of PowerPoint Presentation HHS Study Group Final Report COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Hear presentation and recommendation. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: Heard presentation and recommendation. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-0 4 u LM L= 0 (1) (D E 0 0 06 I 0 u u z Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 - 1 G Z � g G G � s M a s � a a M (A N M L o L = M s c °C o� o a= S. Z > a� Z W > N V \ ' LPL t ♦� M LM OA !]A = M LM Jc c L L � L G c 0 c 0) a cu s M ao s a �. .0 c Q m 0) � 2 J M M N t r 0) M i M Q V G Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 -2 o � § � o � § m E 2 .§ o 2 M = U § o = m \ q « m O U . . . � m E m Q � � u c k CO � a , / J § � � k \ 0 � 2 4 •/ 2 .- D § £ '§ 3 2 d D 3 . . . � ƒ T u t to � < co 7 2 £ a- o 06 a 0 k Z w . . . . 2 § a � 0 -0 4� § o L. § < _ 06 - (a L -0 S LL o .§ § M k § U _ 4 3 ƒ d 0 E . . . . | 0 ` ® $ 4 if� t 2 > b $ LZ V c E LL 0 § § a / / } } 0 2 E 3 ƒ ƒ 3 d D . . . . . �. Board G Commissioners Meeting \ O @0$20]3 ]4- ] -3 \ ` \ Ln N Y N 0 U O C 0 J dA Q – Q U N Q > N z C f' °o L 0 c0 c0 >, N cn 4-J v 0 -a cn cn f0 N to Ncr N N Q N 0 N 0 N ` N N > i M = - E *' .� •> dA O O E N & > U c U p E cn Q c0 S O O p O p 2 E E O 0 N (7 CO c0 U CO C U U cn w N U O � Y N &-a U C N C O *' >, c c0 U Q p '> m u o O —CL U C ` - U C 0 -0 c0 M N cn cn N W O E > Q ++ — — .— N ++ O a i N C V ` > dA O D � E N N Q — i M N & > N Q p cn Q � � Q Q S 2) E a Z7) Q 2 Zn C7 c0 U vii w N U O +� O' Q a� c �, 4, a L O N U Ln U Q i U C > U bjO U c0 O U N O Q M N m ° > p CO c0 CL c > (a L) O N c0 C E -a a a 16 c0 c ' U N c O O O UO > o Q U a o O ° p Q E E a 40 N Q U Q c0 w c0 w cn N N 0 C N U to N N U (1) 4- c0 N N O Q N -0 O +�+ -0 C C c O N c0 c f E N 4-J N CL CL c0 i N U N Q C N E 0 p� — 0 v> d D 0 Q 0 E E 4 w w Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 -4 4 i CA OA i i i buo i • i i i ® i i i i i i o E i a- .LJ 0 0 *5 QL ® i ® i i u cu un Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 -5 4 • • • to 00 (3) E 0- (1) 0 cn -0 E x _0 (D u 0 E -E • • • • • 0 4-J Q) c tn ® ® I • • Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 -6 4 CL B i • c: E > 0- UD • • • • • • • UJ CL Oj E • • • • • • • i • • Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 -7 4 i 4-J U0 • i i 4-J cc U0 E :3• i i O OOWMN% ra u 0 < 0) • CU M L- • L Ln ,e) :3 " — o o L-i i i i • i i • i • 0 -LU 0 a) > < 4-J u 7�.j _I-_ Ln 4: i 0 i > E u 0 LM i i • I 0 > 0 u LU Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 -8 r • o AND • • • • • • A b-0 co • • r 0 %*ARNOW E 4-J •0 • • • r RAC 4-J • • • I Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 g v c� 4; 0 4—J U to W w °® u C1J LO L- ul J- • v u u > °— Lo c� r� r� �E ® °^ 0 4� "—, 0 -0 LO a) (D +j ,° 4� 4a U a) (D 0 M C: W 0 m E — °— (D -° LMca v I f Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 - 10 CL CL 2E E o I �irrr.rrrrrrr.rrrrr Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 - 11 g 0 Jc u U0 _0 -0 E cL LZ 0 -0 c: c: E0 00 w 0 E 0 E +-a u • Ln E OM L- 0 E _0 C v) -0 -2- E Ln E 0 .0 0 4-j U c I Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 - 12 4 Y Y Y Y Y Y { Y ® Y Y i { i Y { Y { { • ® Y { { { Y + Y 8 • ® 8 O� i i i • f g g eg g g g g g I g e LM g Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 - 13 4 e Oj E c: c: E c: aj 0- Oj E E Oj Oj _0 0 M — c: 0 U -0 Oj Oj 0 -0 0 E _0 u 0 u > 0 0 0 < 00 u Gj Gj 4-J ® i Gj Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14- 1 - 14 NEW HANOVER COUNTY Health & Human Services Study Group Report Analysis of Governance and Organization Elizabeth Schrader 7/19/2013 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 1 Background In June 2012,the North Carolina General Assembly passed HB438 (S.L. 2012-126) which gave county commissioners additional options for organizing and governing county human services agencies. Under the new law, a board of county commissioners has the option to assume the powers and duties of certain boards,create a consolidated human services agency,or take both actions. Prior to enacting this change, some of these options had been limited only to counties with populations exceeding 425,000. In January 2013,the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners directed staff to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of health and human services in New Hanover County. Staff was asked to analyze four (4) health and human services organizational and governance models to identify specific recommendations for the best human services model for New Hanover County. The four models included: Organizational Structure Governance Structure Option 1 Two Agencies: Health Department Two Independent Boards: Board of Health Department of Social Services Social Services Board Option 2 Two Agencies: Health Department BOCC as Governing Board(s) Department of Social Services Advisory Health Board if BOCC Assumes BOH Option 3 One Consolidated Human Services Agency(CHSA) One Independent CHSA Board Option 4 One Consolidated Human Services Agency(CHSA) BOCC as CHSA Governing Board Advisory Health Board Due to the depth and breadth of issues under consideration,a multi-disciplinary team of community stakeholders,hereafter called the Health&Human Services Study Group,was assembled to assist staff with the analysis. By design,the 14 member Study Group was selected to represent a diverse cross-section of perspectives and professional expertise (See Appendix A for a list of members). Additionally,the Study Group utilized an outside facilitator to assist the team with its discussions. � W � W U m � � U d "W "W Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-2 Methodology The Study Group met bi-weekly over a period of five months with each meeting lasting two hours. By mutual prior agreement,the last two meetings were extended to two and half hours to provide ample time for discussion. Meeting agendas and pre-reading materials were distributed several days prior to the scheduled meeting time. The Study Group was also periodically asked to complete outside assignments in advance of meetings to help facilitate discussions and in-meeting analysis. At the February 15, 2013 join-up meeting,the team spent time getting to know one another,discussing the values that the team wanted to honor throughout the process, and identifying the principles that would guide how the Study Group would operate. The Study Group also identified information it would need for its evaluation,crafted a list questions to be answered, and determined potential evaluation criteria. This comprehensive list formed the basis of the Study Group work plan/meeting schedule. (See below). Date Topic Format 3/8/13 Overview of Health Department Presentation by Director and senior staff, • Duties of the Director Q&A • Programs /services offered • How those services are provided • Who are the clients • How many citizens or units are impacted 3/22/13 Overview of DSS Presentation by Director and senior staff, • Duties of the Director Q&A • Programs /services offered • How those services are provided • To whom (who are clients) • How many citizens are impacted 4/5/13 Identifying commonalities and differences Individual and group activities- Specifically, • Overlapping services/clients grouping/mind mapping client and program • Complementary services relationships and identifying"frames"and • Unique or stand-alone services "themes" 4/19/13 Overview of personnel policies/issues Presentation by Director and senior HR staff • Federal Merit Policy based on consultation with UNC-Chapel Hill • State Personnel Act(SPA) School of Government and outside technical • NHC Personnel Policies experts; Q&A Feedback from the Community Based and Dr. Barth,UNCW,shared agency pre-focus Faith Based Agency Focus Groups group questionnaires and summarized focus group responses for DSS and Health 5/3/13 Overview of funding&staffing Presentation by Directors and senior staff, • Staff by position type and program Q&A • Customer call volume/support staffing • Mandatory vs. Discretionary programs • Funding sources Commonalities and differences Group review and discussion • Debrief and revisit frames Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-3 5/17/13 Results of Board and County Manager Presentation by Dr. Lori Messinger and Dr. interviews with NC counties who have Kae Livsey,UNCW; Q&A made an organizational or governance change to its human services organization(s) Feedback from current DSS and Health Dr.Tom Barth, UNCW, summarized client Client interviews interview responses for DSS and Health; Q&A 6/7/13 Review of the boards/board options Presentation by E. Schrader based on • Board composition consultation with UNC-Chapel Hill School of • Board roles and responsibilities Government resources • Advisory vs.governing boards • Timeline/process for board or organizational modifications Review of compiled analysis charts Collaborative forum to discuss/make revisions Informal presentation of analysis Share analysis charts. Active Q&A and to the County Manager discussion of Study Group analysis results and recommendation(s) As part of the analysis effort,the Study Group enlisted the assistance of Dr.Tom Barth, University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW) professor in the Department of Public&International Affairs,to collect feedback about each agency's performance from the perspective of three (3) constituent groups: 1) Current DSS and Health Department clients 2) Community Based Agencies (CBAs); and 3) Faith Based Agencies (FBAs) Dr. Barth worked with the Study Group to craft the specific interview questions and agenda format. Dr. Barth also worked extensively with the Health and DSS directors to develop the appropriate study protocols (informed consent, etc.). Then,with the assistance of his graduate students, Dr. Barth conducted, summarized and presented the results of 176 one-on-one client interviews, and two focus groups conducted with 30 Community Based and Faith Based Agencies. (See Appendix B for a complete list of participating agencies). Concurrently,the Study Group also requested assistance from the UNCW College of Health and Human Services faculty members (Dr. Stephanie Smith, Dr. Lori Messinger, and Dr. Kae Livsey) to conduct interviews with board and administration representatives from: a) The seven (7) counties that have taken action as a result of HB 438 (Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Columbus, Edgecombe, Montgomery,and Union counties) b) The two (2) counties that met the previous population threshold and took action prior to HB 438 (Mecklenburg and Wake) c) The one (1) county that met the original population threshold but chose not to take any action (Guilford County) Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-4 It should be noted that,like North Carolina,ten (10) other US states deliver social services programs through a state-supervised and county-administered system (CA, CO, MN, ND, NJ, NY, OH, PA,VA,WI). As part of the same request,the Study Group also asked UNCW faculty to identify comparable counties within these 10 states and interview the appropriate health&human services organizations. However, due to time and resource constraints, it was agreed that the interview activity would focus on the NC counties. With the assistance of the Study Group, NHC staff drafted the interview research guide and established the first contact with the research participants. Finally,the Study Group had hoped to obtain feedback from DSS and Health Department employees about agency performance,but due to time constraints was unable to do so. Although the Study Group had completed its work, NHC staff did conduct an anonymous electronic survey with agency employees. The results of the survey are included in this report. Findings 1. Review of Current Agency Performance Awareness/Familiarity with NHC Services- CBAs and FBAs lack awareness/familiarity with all the programs offered by DSS and the Health Department. The CBAs and FBAs are confused by the multitude of obscure sounding(e.g. special assistance,Wise Woman) and/or ever-changing program names (e.g.welfare vs. TANF,food stamps vs.food and nutrition services). • Both focus groups expressed a desire for education and training about the programs offered by DSS and Health,information about qualification criteria (and how to assist folks filling out the forms). • They also suggested producing a"handbook"of services with a description of the program, common ("street names") and official program names, and where/how to access services. Service Coordination -The Health Department is very responsive to a CBA or FBA initiated request for information or a request to schedule the mobile dental unit or prostate screenings. However,there is little other service coordination that occurs by DSS or Health. Individual employees may reach out to an agency (to coordinate for an event or to try and fill a particular need for a specific client),but there is no systematic or consistent planning process or ongoing communication about current or future needs. • The CBAs and FBAs view themselves as an extension of DSS. These organizations expressed frustration that clients were not being holistically assessed and qualified for all of the DSS or Health services that were needed, available at DSS and/Health, and that the clients were eligible for i) the first time they go to DSS or the Health Department,and ii) before being referred to the non-profits. This comment was echoed by 50%of the clients interviewed. Unless clients know enough to ask about other programs,they are only seen for the specific program they came in for. • DSS and Health lack understanding about what the other community organizations do which results in frustrated patients/clients being sent back and forth between the non-profits and DSS and/or Health. • Every non-profit conducts its'own assessment The agencies expressed a desire have the DSS qualification criteria (and ideally the data) to help staff at the non-profits rationalize forms or have a universal form to make the process easier and more consistent. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-5 • The CBAs and FBAs also expressed a desire for DSS to distinguish between first time recipients vs. repeat users. • The non-profits mentioned that DSS and Health have missed numerous opportunities for additional grant funding because DSS or Health were not ready to assist in a joint application process or failed to apply on its own. Accessibility/Responsiveness- DSS and Health are viewed as bureaucratic organizations. Clients and non-profits report it is difficult to contact DSS or Health and get a live person. Instead,you are funneled to multiple people and/or have to leave voicemails. It was noted that the Health department will always respond to voicemail within 24 hours. However, DSS does not always return calls or may take up to a week to do so. In response to hearing this feedback, DSS staff shared a 2012 study of call data and staffing levels for the main lines at DSS'and the Health Department's 17th street facilities. During the nine months studied: • DSS averaged 9,791 calls/month with two employees answering the phones; The Health Department received 3,728 calls/month on average which were answered by six employees. • Queuing wait times were comparable (on average Health callers waited an additional 6 seconds). However, Health Department staff spent significantly more time on average on the calls (2.6X). • DSS and Health have high levels (14-15%) of abandoned calls which translates to over 1,300 calls/ month at DSS and over 525 calls/month at Health,on average. DSS staff indicated that the call volume/staff ratio means that workers must triage calls-answer quickly what can be answered and transfer all others to caseworkers or supervisors. In many instances,those transferred calls go directly to voicemail while caseworkers are seeing other clients face to face. Health staff similarly indicated that calls were sent to voicemail if staff was with a patient,but time was dedicated each day to respond to voicemail in timely manner. Frequently,the non-profits reported they must get actively involved with DSS on behalf of their clients in order to get an appropriate response.This requires calling a trusted senior staff(Chris McNamee or Wanda Marino) or higher level program manager (Leslie,Angelina and Liz, etc.) to get the issue resolved or get to the person who can resolve the issue. • CBAs and FBAs requested hotline access for (true) emergencies and/or a phone list of contact number for programs. The graduate students interviewing clients noted that a significant percentage owned a car. However, CBAs and FBAs did indicate that transportation can be a significant barrier for some clients. External Communication- No systematic or coordinated communication process exists for DSS or Health (separately or jointly)to communicate regularly with CBAs and FBAs.There is strong participation by senior staff from DSS and Health on various community committees,task forces and boards. This is viewed as the primary vehicle for communication/information sharing by DSS and Health with non-profit agencies. The chief downside of this method being,if a non-profit misses the meeting,they (and their clients/referrals) miss the information. Several agencies mentioned"missing"time/funding limited programs (e.g. LIEAP) altogether. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-6 • Note: Senior DSS and Health staff serving on boards were universally recognized by the non-profits as engaged,committed participants who represent their respective organizations well. In terms of agency specific feedback, Health does a good job making information available to individuals and organizations. The website and telephone lines are useful. Health staff is viewed as friendly,caring, professional, and helpful in answering questions. Patients/clients referred by non-profits to Health have an easy time accessing the appropriate services (smooth and easy process). • The proactive marketing/outreach directly with churches and other organizations are appreciated. However, non-profits noted that many clients cannot afford cable (NHCTV) or a newspaper subscription (Star News). The non-profits suggested Health expand outreach via barber shops/salons, grocery stores,and buses. Health could benefit by further improving the timeliness of responses. The existing DSS website is hard to navigate and difficult to get helpful information from. Phone service is difficult to navigate unless you know the extension to call,and wait times/re-routing is viewed as excessive by clients and non-profits alike. It was further noted that the information provided can be inconsistent and disjointed at times, and clients may receive different answers to the same question from multiple staff members. Customer Service- Health programs generally received high marks for customer service from clients and non-profits. The mobile and health screening programs were called out in particular. However,there remain opportunities to i) improve the timeliness of responses, ii) provide more of an integrated care approach across Health programs and between Health and DSS,iii)bring more programs out into the community (vs. remaining at 17th street),iv) increase opportunity for self-service appointments which can be made more than 24 hours in advance,v) provide a children's corner/activities,and vi) potentially provide transportation services for clients. Feedback identified that heavy caseloads of families and individuals in crisis,federally mandated timelines, chronically understaffed phone lines, and challenges and changes due to NCFAST and Northwoods have all contributed to high DSS staff stress levels. Outstanding,highly committed, professional staff works under crushing caseloads every day to do their best for the families of NHC. Unfortunately, staff performance is very uneven; Non-profits report some front line workers are negative, combative and difficult to work with; Non-profits and clients discussed how these same workers show little respect or compassion for clients and families; Repeated negative feedback about those staff members appears to go unaddressed. While DSS facilities and wait times have improved significantly since the lobby renovation,the metal detectors, guards,and lobby atmosphere contribute to a DMV/prison-like waiting area atmosphere. Despite the number of families served by DSS,there isn't anywhere for a child to play while waiting for 30 - 60 minutes. Finally, hearing impaired clients are easily skipped in the waiting room if they do not realize they are being called. For additional detail, please see the FBA and CBA focus group summaries and client interview results in Appendix C. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-7 2. Relationships Between DSS and Health Programs/Services and Functions The Study Group looked at the extent and nature of the relationships between various programs,services and functions conducted by DSS and Health. • Environmental Health (Plan Review/Construction Approval/Permitting, Inspections, Well/Wastewater/Septic Permitting, Health Inspections,etc.) is a stand-alone compliance oriented organization. There is little overlap or relationship to any other Health or DSS program or client. • Significant overlap or duplication of back office and support functions exists. Specifically: HR support,fiscal support/billing, supplies management, mailroom management,vehicles management, interpreter services management, records management(vital/client),voter registration,customer care/service,legal services,community outreach and promotion, disaster preparedness staffing and teams, and program integrity activities. • In looking at the remaining services,two frameworks emerged that identified clear areas of commonality. The Arc of a life and family unit-When overlaying the continuum of services provided to the arc of a life (and family unit) as it moves from birth to death,the Study Group identified a cluster of interrelated programs and services centered on the family and childhood. These programs have significant target client/patient overlap. (Some of the health programs may also target a broader population,but are 100%inclusive of the DSS target populations.) Additionally, a number of the DSS programs are either required to qualify participants for a Health program or would result in improved revenue capture for that Health program. While not part of the scope of the evaluation,the Study Group noted Senior Resource Center (SRC) programs would have significant overlap with DSS adult Medicaid,guardianship,medical transportation management,etc.in the Older Adult/Elder stage of life and recommended including SRC as part of any future analysis. WIC Family&Child Medicaid Adult Medicaid (all forms) PCM ........................................................ Family Planning/FP Waiver SFec ai Assistance Maternal Health Immunizations Limited Physicals In-Home Aide Pregnant Medicaid FNS,SNAP 3CCP Medicaid SRC Pa^oga^csms Day Care Health Choice 3CCID MIC TANF/WF Child Physicals Wise Woman Breastfeeding Family Counseling Mobile Dental Unit CoiFosc:oloy Lactation CC4C Lead Poisoning Pre-Birth Women& Children/Adolescents Independent Older Adults/ Infants &Families Adults Elders Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-8 Meeting clients where they live/spend time-The Study Group identified three locations where increased collaboration and communication across programs/services might result in better outcomes for higher risk populations. Schools Adult Home/Adult Day Care At Home School Nurses Adult Home Monitoring Adult Protective Services School Mental Health Adult Day Health Monitoring In Home Placement Services CPS At Risk(prevention) RC "(1d dt Doff%("are, etcj Adult Medicaid Child Welfare Services Emergency Assistance Mobile Dental Unit Energy Assistance Lead Poisoning Follow-up FNS SRC"Horne Delivered J"vleals or congregate 3. Other North Carolina Counties Implementing Changes to Health&Human Services As discussed in the Methodology section, UNCW faculty conducted the interviews with county managers and board members on behalf of the Study Group. Ten participants agreed to be part of the study: four were Chairs of Board of County Commissioners and six were County Managers. The participants represented eight of the nine counties that had consolidated some aspect of their DSS and Health management and governance structures. The county that has been eligible prior to HB438 but did not elect to consolidate, Guilford, elected not to participate despite multiple written and phone call requests (no reason or response was given). It should also be noted that only two counties had both the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and the County Manager who agreed to participate. Five factors were identified by participants that contributed to the decision to consolidate: a) Responsible for the funding and performance of Social Services and Health Departments,but have little practical say over how the departments are managed or operated; b) Desire to enhance collaboration between Social Services and Health Departments in hopes of improving service delivery and encouraging planning efforts to be more proactive and forward looking. Participants expressed a desire for a more holistic approach to service delivery; c) Desire to align personnel policies for consistency and simplification; d) Desire for increased control of hiring and firing of directors; e) Desire to reduce costs of service delivery. In regards to reducing costs,with the exception of Buncombe,most respondents have not yet seen a significant reduction as a result of the consolidation efforts. One respondent suggested that consolidation should be viewed in the context of enhanced service delivery rather than cost reduction. Few counties indicated that they used any data in their decision making process. Several respondents did indicate that they received technical support or facilitation from the University Of North Carolina Chapel Hill School Of Government. In accordance with the General Statutes,the counties held the required public hearings. Some also choose to hold meetings with existing DSS and Health Department board members, particularly in cases where the governing boards were being disbanded. Counties also held meeting with employees being transitioned from the State Personnel Act(SPA) to the county personnel policies. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-9 The implementation of consolidation was viewed as a longer term process. In the case of Buncombe, the formal consolidation to a CHSA is a further continuation of the innovative functional consolidation and collaboration efforts that have been underway since 2005. For other counties just beginning the journey, respondents recognized that this will be a process accomplished over a period of time. BOCC respondents noted several challenges related to serving as the governing board for an agency or for the consolidated entity: a) BOCC members lack the technical expertise for decision making and were required to rely heavily on the county staff and/or the advisory board; and b) Confusion about reporting relationships of the Director(s) or roles and responsibilities of the county manager in relation to the BOCC, CHSA (or DSS) staff, and the advisory board(s); Finally,when questioned about whether the community still has a"voice"in human services operations,respondents identified active involvement by advisory groups (and in the case of one county, an advocacy committee) as evidence of ongoing community input. After hearing the interview conclusions,the Study Group wondered if the results might have been different had the displaced agency directors and currently acting CHSA directors had also been interviewed. While there was no evidence that would call into question the veracity of the information provided by the Board Chairs and County Managers, Study Group members expressed concerns that the interview results reflected the views of the individuals who desired, and benefitted most from,these changes and therefore may be biased. As of June 19th,twelve NC counties had consolidated into a Consolidated Human Services Agency (CHSA). Five counties elected to govern via an independent CHSA Board, seven elected for the BOCC to govern. The full report"An Assessment of the Implementation of HB438 in Select North Carolina Counties"is included in Appendix D. 4. Personnel Policies Background- In order to receive Federal funds for certain programs, State and local agencies must have personnel systems in place that are compliant with Federal Merit Personnel System Requirements (5 CFR Subpart F§900.604). These standards relate to issues of recruitment and selection, classification/compensation,training,employee relations, equal employment opportunity (EEO),and political activity. The State Personnel Act(SPA) meets the Federal requirements. The State has granted New Hanover County"Substantially Equivalent"status to the SPA with respect to Recruitment&Selection and Classification/Compensation. New Hanover County has not previously sought"Substantially Equivalent"status with respect to employee relations (primarily addressing progressive discipline and due process). However, NHC Personnel Policies mirror the State Personnel Act provisions, including progressive discipline and due process standards. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 10 Note: As part of the policy review process,NHC Human Resources has identified a need to add clarity to EEO policies. Regardless of the final Study Group recommendation, this clarification will need to occur. The NHC BOCC adopted the county personnel policy by resolution. In contrast to adoption by ordinance,policies adopted by resolution serve as a guideline (rather than law),can be either"at will" or"merit" (rather than requiring protections for employees that are not provided by"at will"),can be implemented with more flexibility,and could potentially provide fewer guarantees to employees (rather than have a legal basis for process protections). Current State- DSS and Health employees are county employees who are subject to the State Personnel Act(SPA). Health and DSS employees'position levels,pay classifications,compensation and benefits are the same as the other county employees. However,these employees formally vest in property rights after 24 months of employment and are subject to the SPA appeals process. Unlike other county department directors, DSS and Health Department directors are appointed by, report to, and dismissed by their respective board. NHC employees covered by the NHC Personnel Policy follow the county appeal process (unless they report directly to the County Manager,in which case they do not have any appeal rights). See the flow chart below for a comparison of the two processes. SPA NHC Final Recourse Legal/Sue Administrative County Manager Law Judge Appeals to Who Then Makes a Recommendation to Executive Committee NHC Human (DSS/ BOH) Resources Appeals to Appeals to Or Appeals to Investigated By DSS or Health Department Director Director Appeals to Appeals to Employee Employee Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 11 It was noted by the DSS, Health and HR Directors that the dual system is very confusing and costs more than a single system. The higher costs are primarily due to a) lost productivity(need to check with two sets of individuals -state and county) and b) cash expenses for preparation for Administrative proceedings (out of pocket legal fees, etc.). Change to NHC Personnel Policies Only Available Under CHSA - If the county were to consolidate into a CHSA, DSS and Health employees would be subject to County Personnel Policies unless the BOCC were to elect to subject them to SPA. Additionally,under a CHSA,the CHSA Director statutorily reports directly to the County Manager (regardless of the personnel policy). A director would be hired or fired by the County Manager with consultation and consent of the CHSA Board. The Study Group acknowledged that the NHC policies provide due process and it is in the county's best interests to treat employees fairly. However,some Study Group members expressed concerns about the strength of the protections afforded by NHC policy without a third party being involved. Study Group members also expressed concerns that current DSS and Health employees would view any move to county personnel policies as a loss of benefits and could negatively impact morale. 5. Employee Feedback Two hundred and thirty employees responded to the employee survey, a participation rate of over 51% of the employees in each agency(and in total). Respondents were split 62% DSS/38% Health. The 8 question survey was comprised of a combination of multiple choice, frequency, performance rating,and open-ended questions. Collaboration and Coordination- Survey respondents indicated a high level of communication and coordination on behalf of patients/clients and their families between programs within their home agency. Over 62% reported reaching out to a colleague working in another program or service in their department to help obtain additional needed services for a client/patient or their immediate family- member at least weekly or more frequently. Working effectively with other county agencies on behalf of patients and clients was a different story. Only 29%of DSS employees and 34% of Health employees reported that they coordinate with any other NHC department on a daily or weekly basis. Additionally, 30%indicated that they have never contacted another department or done so only once. Easy to Do Business With- On average, Health employee respondents felt the Health Department does a very good job making it easy for patients to access,and learn about,available services. Approximately 70%of the Health respondents rated the Health Department as Very Good or Excellent on these attributes. Additionally, 60%rated the Health department as doing a Very Good or Excellent job providing coordinated care to patients and their families. Despite high self-reported frequency of coordination between programs within DSS, DSS respondents rated their department significantly lower for these same attributes. Only 37%rated the agency as Very Good or Excellent at providing coordinated care for the family. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 12 Scale= 100 points Health DSS Weighted average Poor=20, Fair=40, Good=60,VG = 80, Excellent= 100 N=88 N=142 Making it easy for clients/patients to access all of the services they need 78.6 64.1 Educating clients/patients about all of the services programs available 78.0 63.8 Providing coordinated care for the family rather than case management 72.3 60.0 for individuals Educating Clients About Available Programs- Not surprisingly, respondents felt very comfortable providing information to clients/patients about programs offered within their home agency,with an average score of 5.6/7 (where 1 is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree that they would feel comfortable providing information about programs available in their home agency). Respondents were significantly less comfortable providing information to clients/patients about programs available at the other agency. Health employees had an average score 3.7/7 regarding DSS programs,with over 30%strongly disagreeing. DSS employees had an average rating of 3.2/7 in regards to Health programs with over 41%strongly disagreeing. Barriers and Enablers to Providing Coordinated Care- DSS respondents indicated that they believe universal workers and NC FAST will both (eventually) be positive steps to providing more comprehensive services. However,respondents indicated inadequate or ineffective training and a steep learning curve coupled with high caseloads and strict timelines were contributing to the challenge. DSS respondents suggested providing clients with educational flyers and the DSS staff with a reliable and up to date list of available CBA programs/resources and effective training about the other programs available in the county. Process and service delivery improvements that would allow workers to spend additional time with clients were also identified. The current processes,staffing levels and high caseloads were frequently cited as barriers. Employees from both agencies identified a lack of knowledge/needing education about programs and services available at the other agency as a key barrier to providing more holistic and coordinated care. Additionally, similar to the feedback from the Community Based Agencies, employees recommended putting together an easy to use comprehensive guide to services (with program names and descriptions,contact information, etc.). Employees at both agencies also identified inadequate access to mental health services,difficulty scheduling appointments and difficulty coordinating transportation as key additional barriers. Numerous employees identified having multiple sites as a barrier and suggested co-location of services (some or all). Health department respondents also uniquely identified a lack of available services (particularly for the uninsured), and the fact that service coordination is not a Medicaid billable expense/hours, and patient issues with Medicaid eligibility or billing (which the Health employees lacked the basic knowledge to address). Health respondents suggested obtaining permission from patients/clients, and/or HIPPA releases and providing appropriate HIPPA training for DSS workers. Numerous Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 13 employees indicated closer collaboration and communication between DSS and Health would be beneficial. A copy of the employee questionnaire is included in Appendix E. Recommendations As discussed in the Background section,the Health&Human Services Study Group was charged with assisting county staff with evaluating four (4) potential organizational and governance models for health and human services delivery in New Hanover County. The Study Group identified key evaluation criteria and prepared a comprehensive analysis of the pros,cons and necessary conditions for success for each model (which can be found in Appendix F). It would be unacceptable and undesirable to continue to operate and govern DSS and the Health Department using the existing"Status Quo"model. Many opportunities exist to improve collaboration, communication, and service delivery to the citizens-internally(between the two agencies and with other departments such as the Senior Resource Center) as well as externally with various community partners. However,the Study Group is concerned that a Consolidated Human Services Agency(CHSA)would result in a larger and even less responsive bureaucratic agency,unable to effectively focus on either agency's core mission due to the wider and more complex human services focus. Equally concerning would be potential politicization of health and human services policy and the lack of subject matter expertise were the BOCC to assume governance responsibilities. Given these considerations,the Study Group would like to propose an alternative model that could address many of the identified operational and performance issues while still maintaining the focus and positive attributes of the stand-alone agencies and preserving the independence of the policy making boards. Specific elements of this fifth"Functional Collaborative Model"include: a) Implementation of formal structures to better inform policy making and increase operational transparency and oversight: i. Creation or assignment of a board member liaison position- a board member who would sit on both the Board of Health and the DSS Board who would be responsible for facilitating active communication and interaction between the two boards. ii. Establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the Board of Health and Social Services Board where the board will continue its policy role,and the County Manager will assume responsibility for operations (e.g.budget oversight,organizational and operational decisions, etc.). Continuing to evaluate consolidation back office and support functions (noted in the Findings section above) and the removal of other organizational silos and structural barriers is essential to the success of the "Functional Collaborative Model". b) Regularly scheduled intra-agency leadership meetings i. Joint DSS and Health Board planning retreat to develop a joint multi-year strategic plan. Creation of a steering committee to monitor implementation and progress against the strategic plan and report back to both boards. ii. Quarterly meetings between the Directors,Asst. Directors /senior staff Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 14 iii. Annual Board of Health and DSS Board joint meeting to discuss key trends, emerging issues, progress against strategic goals, strategy, and policy implications for health and human services within NHC iv. Annual joint disaster preparedness and response planning c) Creation of multi-agency working groups/teams to coordinate: i. Groups of related family and children programs ii. School-based services (e.g.by a given elementary school) iii. Joint community outreach/promotional efforts iv. Joint CBA education,resource coordination,communication,planning (including the development of a"programs guide") Additional Recommendations 1) Rationalize multiple"community prevention teams"that have similar community participants and missions (e.g. CCPT/CFPT) into a single team. 2) Update the EEO section of the NHC Personnel Policy. Acknowledgements The Health&Human Services Study Group would like to acknowledge the many individuals who have given so graciously of their time and talent over the course of this project. We would like to express our gratitude to the UNCW College of Health and Human Services who provided the faculty resources and funding for the HB438 Implementation Study and Report. We thank Dr. Lori Messinger, Dr. Kae Livsey and Dr. Stephanie Smith for their leadership and insightful analysis in conducting the HB438 Implementation Study. We also wish to acknowledge Dr.Andrea Jones for conducting many of the participant interviews. Finally,we express our gratitude to the study participants for their thoughtful participation and candor. We are particularly grateful to Dr.Tom Barth for acting as our Study Group co-facilitator and for his leadership of the community-based and faith based focus groups and for client interviews and analyses. We also wish to acknowledge UNCW graduate students Hunter Crumpton, Sarah Daniels, Olivia Dorsey, Cindy Hucks, Beth Looney, Lindsay Maher, Fidias Reyes, and Samantha Williams for their assistance with the focus groups and for conducting and recording the results of the one-on-one client interviews. Finally,we wish to thank Dennis Ihnat, New Hanover County Human Resources Director, and Mark Francolini, NHC Human Resources Manager, for providing assistance understanding Federal Merit Policy, the State Personnel Act, and NHC Personnel Policies. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 15 Appendix A Agency Directors David Rice Director of New Hanover County Health Department LaVaughn Nesmith Director of the New Hanover County Department of Social Services Agency Governing Virginia Adams,Ph.D.,RN Boards New Hanover County Board of Health Chair Evelyn Bryant New Hanover County Board of Social Services Vice Chairman Local Medical Society Robert Shakar,Jr.,MD New Hanover-Pender County Medical Society Physician Hospital Matthew Heywood New Hanover Regional Medical Center Chief Operating Officer K-12 Public School Rick Holliday,Ph.D. System New Hanover County Public Schools Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Mental Health Managed Foster Norman Care Organization CoastalCare Chief Executive Officer,Area Director Community College Amanda Lee,Ph.D. Cape Fear Community College Vice President of Instruction University Charles Hardy,Ph.D. University of North Carolina Wilmington Founding Dean and Professor College of Health&Human Services Community Based Elizabeth Mandel Agencies Child Advocacy and Parenting Place Exchange Club Center, Inc. Chief Financial Officer/ Chief Operating Officer Anganette Young New Hanover Community Health Center Chief Executive Officer Administration Avril Pinder New Hanover County Government Assistant County Manager Elizabeth Schrader New Hanover County Government Strategy&Polic Mana er Co-Facilitator Tom Barth,Ph.D. University of North Carolina Wilmington Professor - Department of Public&International Affairs Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 16 Appendix B Community and Faith Based Agency Focus Group Participants Abundant Life Christian Fellowship American Red Cross Bread for Life Cape Fear Health Net Cape Fear Memorial Foundation Communities in Schools (CIS) of Cape Fear Open House Youth Shelter of Coastal Horizons Center, Inc. Domestic Violence Shelter and Services, Inc. First Baptist Church Food Bank of Central and Eastern NC—Wilmington Branch Freedom's Way Ministries Good Shepherd Center Macedonia Baptist Church Macedonia Masonboro Church Masonboro Baptist Church Mother Hubbard's Cupboard NC Coastal Pines Girl Scouts New Beginning Christian Church New Covenant Holiness Church Phoenix Employment Ministry Port City Community Church St.Andrews- Covenant Presbyterian Church St. Mary Social Ministry St.Therese Catholic Church Smart Start of New Hanover County The Salvation Army United Way Wilmington Interfaith Hospitality Network WARM, Inc. Wilmington Health Access for Teens (WHAT) Wrightsville United Methodist Church Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 17 Appendix C Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 18 Faith Community Focus Group Themes Strengths • DPH will always get back to you (usually the same or next day latest)/very responsive to the voicemails left for them • Mobile programs by DPH are excellent (meets the community where they are, serves whoever shows up not just event organizers, and the DPH is responsive to scheduling requests by faith community) • CPS unit at DSS is responsive and does a great job (good outcomes) • On-call DSS Social Workers extremely responsive Challenges • Low awareness of full spectrum of programs offered by DSS and DPH • Confusion about names (street names vs. "official" names) • Difficult to contact both DSS and DPH and get a live person(get funneled to multiple people and/or have to leave voicemails) • Transportation is challenging (getting clients to DSS or DPH not easy) • Stigma of going to/being seen at DSS building • No regular communication from DSS to faith community, such as how Faith-Based Funds is being used • Persistently high unemployment/takes long time to find another job (longer than emergency aid allows for) • Every agency does its own assessment • Need to distinguish between chronic users of system and those in crisis for first time or only periodic users (equity concerns) Opportunities • Improving responsiveness and sense of urgency at DSS to respond to messages/requests for information left(don't always get a response, and if do, may be many days later) • Making qualification criteria(or actual data) available so staff can help clients fill out forms, could rationalize forms/criteria to one set, etc. • Improving coordination and communication between DSS and clients (qualify clients for all services, be proactive about information, etc.) • To better coordinate services if DPH &DSS treated faith and non-profits as an extension of DSS. This is how the faith community views itself. o To NOT refer people who qualify for DSS services out to community until DSS resources are exhausted o To have coordinated way to identify first time recipients vs. perpetual users o To be able to clearly identify where "cracks are" for working poor • Advertising for community programs (e.g. Mobile Dental Unit or Prostate Screenings) on more than just letter to churches (though this is good), on NHCTV (which requires cable) or Star News. Suggestions included barber shops/salons, grocery stores and buses 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2- 19 Wish For.... • Bringing services into the community more often via joint mobile services, satellite sites, etc. (vs. at DSS or DPH building) • Handbook of all services (with street and proper names) • Hotline access for emergencies and/or phone list of contact numbers for programs • DSS and DPH to provide Life Skills training (budgeting, energy and water conservation tips, healthy nutrition and exercise, etc.) • Ability to easily speak with someone or schedule an appointment • Regular communication between DSS and network of faith based folks • Someone to take/manage a holistic view of clients at DSS (causes that brought them there) and link up all services for the individual and family—true case management • Drop in center(showers, clean clothes, computer access) • An umbrella organization or council of some type that would be comprised of all key elements of the health and human services network of care (DPH, DSS, churches, nonprofit agencies)...this group would meet on a regular basis to coordinate services, share information, etc.) 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-20 Nonprofit Agency Focus Group Themes Strengths of the Department of Public Health • Excellent customer service o Compassionate, caring, and dedicated supervisors and frontline workers o DPH leaders are engaged in solutions and are part of the team of organizations o Staff is positive and very open to ideas • Information is easily accessible o Proactive in supplying information to organizations and the public o Website and telephone lines are useful for obtaining information • Smooth and easy referral process Challenges of the Department of Public Health • Large amounts of information to disseminate • Lots of demand and not enough resources • Lack of communication and understanding of what services each organization provides o Patients get frustrated with getting sent back and forth between DPH and other organizations Strengths of the Department of Social Services • Excellent supervisory staff members o Leslie,Angelina,and Liz act as real advocates for the homeless - respect for DSS comes from these ladies and their involvement in local committees and their desire to educate the public • Positive experiences when the right DSS worker is involved o Adult Protective Services come within 3 hours* o Child Protective Services are very helpful* o Work First- managers are terrific,approachable, informative, return phone calls* o Food and Nutrition services have a very quick turnaround of having client cards activated under 7 days* c Medicaid staff support applicants from start to finish* Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-21 * Referral process is fairly positive* o Better experience when the organization is involved on behalf of the client • When pushed to the wall, DSS gets the job done *These comments came from specific organizations and were not the norm Challenges of the Department of Social Services • Too many levels of bureaucracy • Poor customer service o Front line workers are very negative, combative,and difficult to work with o DSS front line workers show little respect and compassion for clients and their families o Unwelcoming lobbies and staff members o Caseworkers do not answer their clients' calls o Repeated negative feedback about the same staff members with no action • Inefficient level of service o Adult Protective Services is difficult to work with o Clients often wait more than two weeks to get their food cards activated o If clients are hearing impaired,they are easily skipped in the waiting room if they do not realize they are being called * Access to information is limited o Very few formal contacts to utilize for help o Website is hard to navigate and get information from o Phone line is difficult if you don't know who's extension you need, no list of extensions o Information can be inconsistent and disjointed,client may receive different information from multiple DSS staff members Lack of communication and understanding of what services each organization provides o Patients get frustrated with getting sent back and forth between DSS and other organizations Difficult referral process unless organizations get involved on behalf of the client Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-22 Opportunities for the Department of Public Health and e t of Social Services • Educate partner organizations o Provide seminars to organizational partners to inform them of what services DSS and DPH provide • Provide support for front line workers o Care for Caregivers - create opportunities for caseworkers to step back from the "trenches"and take a moment to realize the positive impact they are making in order to help them stay more positive o Provide professional growth opportunities within each organization • Enhance customer service o Allow a client's first person of contact to become their case manager until they are officially handed off to a designated caseworker o Provide transportation services for clients o Provide childcare for clients o Embrace an integrated care approach between DPH and DSS o Employ case managers that can deal with all components of a client's case o Make county to county transfer of services easier o Restructure forms so they are more easily understood o Provide a literacy service • Seek new opportunities for funding o Grants and funding has been missed in the past because DPH or DSS wasn't ready to assist in the process or did not request funds • Rebrand DSS in order to create a better image for clients and the public Other Comments • Two participants asked about why this Study Group has been formed and the purpose of consolidation or restructuring of DPH and DSS. They are concerned that a consolidation will create one very large bureaucracy versus two smaller,more focused bureaucracies and they wonder if that will make responsiveness and accessibility even more difficult. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-23 Tliew Hanover County Health and Human Services Organization Governance Summary of Client Interviews at the Departments of Public Health and Social Services May 17, 2013 Dr. Thomas J. Barth Professor of Public Administration UNC Wilmington Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-24 Background/Methodology At the request of the Study Group, MPA graduate students under the direction of Dr. Tom Barth conducted a series of client interviews in the waiting room of the Departments of Social Services and Public Health. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain the clients' perspective on the quality of the delivery of services received at the two departments. A copy of the survey instrument is provided in the Appendix(the questions were reviewed in advance by DPH and DSS staff). Each interviewer at DPH received HIPPA training in advance. Face-to-face interviews were conducted at the following times: DSS Interview Schedule: Monday,April 29 9:30 - 11:30 2:30-4:30 Wednesday,May 1 12:00 -2:00 Thursday,May 2 9:30 - 11:30 2:30 -4:30 DPH Interview Schedule Monday,Ma6 9:30 - 11:30 2:00 -4:00 Wednesday,May 8 9:30 - 11:30 Friday, May 10 2:00—4:00 A total of 94 interviews were conducted at DPH and 80 at DSS. Summary statistics and themes follow. Please note that the clients interviewed do not represent a statistically valid sample of the DPH or DSS populations; rather these findings provide a snapshot of clients described below who were in the waiting areas at the times listed above. The report concludes with overall impressions of the experience by the team of interviewers. 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-25 Summary Statistics is Interviewed 94 DPH Clients Interviewed: Race Caucasian 38 (40%) African American 31 (33%) Hispanic 10 (110/0) Other[Unknown 15 Sex Females 80(85%) Males 10 (11%) Couples 4 (4%) Marital Status Single 66(70%) Married 28 (30%) Children w/children 71 (76%) w/o children 21 (221/o) pregnant 2 Age Teens 17 (180/,) age 20-30 47(500/,) age 30-40 20(21%) age 40+10 (11 0/0) 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-26 Summary Findings Reason for Visit WIC-37 Tests (pregnancy, STD,pap smear, TB) - 13 Immunizations/Shots- 9 Birth Control -4 First Visit or Repeat? 76 (81%)repeat visitors How Heard about Service? Referral from professional 37 (often doctor,hospital or clinic) Word of mouth/friend 20 Family member 16 Online 7 How Easy or Hard to Find Out about Services? 87%of those who answered question found it easy to find out about services. What was Your Experience Like? 70%of those who answered the question had something positive to say, most often about friendly, informative staff who make an effort to make you comfortable. The negative comments focused primarily on the wait time. 01 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-27 If Phoning, Do You Get Live Person or Yoicemail? Do You get Return Call in 24 Hours? A substantial majority of the clients get a live person,but several mentioned that you have to stay on the line for an extended period of time to get through. Of those who do leave a message,the vast majority receive a call back within 24 hours. When_you arrive are you greeted?Do you know where to go? 87%of those who answered the question indicate they are greeted, Several mentioned that this is the security guard,who in this case is a county officer(who by the way has a pleasant demeanor). Unlike DSS,there is no metal detector, so the atmosphere is more welcoming at the entrance. How Long was the Wait? Typical wait time appears to be 30 minutes to an hour,with some extreme cases on either end. An appointment appears to help, but it's not clear that everyone does that as it must be made within 24 hours. How responsive were the staff? 89%of those who answered the question indicated staff were very helpful and friendly. Were staff able to help or give you an answer in a timely manner? 78%of those who answered the question were positive about timely answers. Did the staff hel vou with other issues or concerns that came up while you were there? 70%of those who answered the question indicated other issues were addressed by staff. 5 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-28 Do you own your own vehicle? I no how easy or difficult is it to met to DSS to apply for or receive services? 80%of those surveyed have a vehicle. Transportation does not appear to be a major issue. Other Suggestions or Comments Rewardding DPH? (frequency noted) • Reduce waiting time (14) • Nice staff...do a good job(11) • Not aware of all the services that are offered(9) • Nothing for children to do during wait...need play area,books, movies (5) • Would like to be able to make an appointment more than 24 hrs. in advance(1) • Much quicker and more efficient than Charlotte...friendlier atmosphere...does not have a "DMV"feel (1) • Need national database to connect with records for people corning from other states (1) • Reopen back entrance....makes access easier(1) • Put bus schedule and map on the wall (1) 6 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-29 Summary Statistics lie is Interviewed 80 DSS Clients Interviewed Race African American 30 (38%) Caucasian 29 (36%) Hispanic 11 (140/,) Middle Eastern 1 Unknown 9 Sex Females 56 (70%) Males 23(29%) Couples Marital Status Single 45 (56%) Married 28 (35%) Unknown 7 Children w/children 59 (740/,) w/o children 20 (25%) Unknown 1 Age- teens 6 (7%) age 20-30 47 (59%) age 30-40 8 (10%) age 40+ 19 (24%) 7 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-30 Summary Findings — DSS Reason for Visit Food Stamps 26 Medicaid 16 Food and Nutrition 11 Financial Assistance 8 Work First 6 Multiple Needs 8 First Visit or Repeat? 65 (81%)repeat visitors How Heard about Service? Friends/word of mouth 26 Referral from professional 15 Family member 11 How Easy or Hard to Find Out about Services? 60%of those who answered question indicated it was easy to find out about the services. What was Your Experience Like? About 50%of those who answered question had something positive to say,most often about helpful social workers. The other 50%had either mixed or negative comments, most often mentioning the wait,phone service, and uneven staff attitudes. 8 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-31 IfPhoninz,Do You Get Live Person or Voicemail? Do You zet Return Call in 24 Hours? About 50%get voicemail at least some of the time. About 1/3 of those who answered question did not get a call back within 24 hours. When you arrive are you greeted?Do you know where to go? The vast majority said they are greeted and know where to go. The first greeter is the group of security guards at the entrance to the waiting room,who are unavoidable since everyone is screened by metal detector. It is also fairly obvious where to go as the receptionist windows are straight ahead. How Long was the Wait? Typical wait time 30 minutes to one hour,with some exceptions at both extremes. Several commented that the remodeling has reduced wait times quite a bit. How responsive were the staff? About 60%of those who answered the question answered that staff were helpful. Were staff able to help or give you an answer in a timely manner? About 75%of those who answered the question responded yes. Did the staffhelp you with other issues or concerns that came up while you were there? 9 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-32 50%of those who answered the question indicated that staff either help them with other issues or ask if they have other needs; otherwise the interaction is focused on what you came for unless the client knows to ask. Do you own your own vehicle? Ina how easy or difficult is it to met to DSS to apply for or receive services? Almost 60%of those interviewed indicated they had a vehicle, and most of the rest take the bus, get a ride or walk. Nine people indicated transportation is difficult,usually because the bus ride is long. However, it does not seem to be an issue for most. Other Suggestions or Comments Regarding DSS? (frequency noted) • Need to improve customer service(waiting room atmosphere loud and confusing with staff calling out names, staff unfriendly and judgmental, TV has no sound, feels like DMV or prison) (19) • Staff are helpful and doing the best they can to provide many services(9) • Reduce wait time (8) • More help for teen and working morns, e.g. daycare(7) • More integration with housing services (WHA, Section 8) and help with rent(7) • Childcare area in waiting room; make use of TV for children(4) • More info on jobs (3) • Medicaid coverage for glasses/eyecare(2) 10 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-33 Overall Impressions y Interview Team • Clients at both the DPH and DSS were generally satisfied with the services once they were able to see someone. The wait time tended to be an issue at both agencies. We did receive more negative responses towards DSS and the lack of customer service,but it is clear that the DSS population is in more distress, unhappy and frustrated with their life situation. It seemed like clients seeking services at DSS were given more of the "run around." Clients seemed particularly satisfied with WIC,which is not surprising given the nature of the service. They seemed very satisfied and grateful for the services offered. • It would be ideal to have a play area for the children in both places. Many clients must come in with their children and they have to sit and wait for long periods of time. If an area is not available then perhaps the TV could be tuned to a children's channel. Most of the adult clients had a smart phone and therefore have their own entertainment. • Comparing the waiting rooms was dramatic. DPH was nice and similar to a private doctor's office while DSS has the feel of the DMV(processing people)or for some even a prison with the multiple security guards and metal detector at the entrance. It is curious as to why DPH does not have a metal detector and has an officer from the county sheriffs department. These guards/officers are the first contact you have upon entry to both departments, so their demeanor can set the tone. • It seems that the TV's at DSS could be put to better use. Currently you see the county GTV station but without sound. One client suggested using the TV's similar to the Social Security Office,where you get a number that is posted on the screen instead of the current system where a staff person calls out names. This can be an issue when the waiting area is crowded and noisy. DPH has TV's on to CNN. • Consistent with comments from the faith community and nonprofit agencies, DSS has a serious challenge managing the volume of calls. Clients reported not getting return calls within 24 hours about one third of the time. • Cross training on customer service(and even sharing resources)between DPH and DSS might be beneficial. It is clear that both Departments have made improvements (the reduced wait times from the remodeling of the lobby at DSS was mentioned by several clients), but as discussed above the contrast in climates is noteworthy. It is also clear that DSS has a much larger flow of clients. 11 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-34 Appendix Client Interview Questions Introduction: • Hello, I am a UNCW graduate student helping the County conduct a survey of people using services at the Dept. of Public Health/Social Services. We are collecting the information in order to improve the services you receive. • Would you have a few minutes while you are waiting to answer a few questions? We will not ask for your name, and your answers will have no impact on your receiving services. We will stop immediately if your name is called for your appointment. VISIT TODAY . Is this the first time here you have visited [DSS or DPH] for this program or service? Yes No 2. If No,how many times have you been here for this program or service? 3. How did you hear about this service? Probes: Were you referred?Dad you find out yourself? How difficult or easy was it to find information about this service? 4. What brings you to [DSS or DPH] today? (Note: could be sensitive...have them write it down for you in space below) 12 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-35 PREVIOUS VISITS) S. Not counting today, have you visited [DSS or DPHI previously during the past six months? a. If no,skip to#7 b. If so,what service were you there for? (Note...have them write down below) 6. Thinking about those past visit(s),what was your experience like? Probes: If you called, did you get to a live voice or voice mail? Did you get a return call in 24 hours? When you arrive are you greeted?Do you know where to go? How long did you have to wait to see someone?? How responsive were the staff? Were they able to help or give you an answer in a timely manner? Did the staff help you with other issues or concerns that came up while you were there? If you could change one thing about your experience during these past visits, what would it be? 13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-36 7. What services should be provided that are not currently available? What services need to be expanded? 8. Do you own your own vehicle? If no, how easy or difficult is it to get to [DSS or DPH] to apply for or receive services? 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about the services provided or your experiences with this agency? Probe: Any other improvements you would like to see? Client Profile: Age: Teens 20-3030-40 Sex: Male Female Ethnicity: Caucasian_ Black Hispanic_ Asian Other Married Single Children: Yes No 14 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-37 endix Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-38 COLLEGE OF I EALTH & HUMAN SERVICES SCHOOL OF NuRswc SCHOuL oF HtALTn AND Arrum HumAn SaFNCES SCHOOLOF SOCIAL WORK AN ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF H13 438 IN SELECT NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES A Report to the New Hanover County Health and Human Services Study Group by Dr. Lori Messinger Dr. Kae Livsey Dr. Stephanie Smith May 15, 2013 1 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-39 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 3 RESEARCHMETHODS .......................................................................................................................................4 Recruitment/Sample............................................................................................................................................ Interviewprocess................................................................................................................................................. 5 Dataanalysis .................................................................................................................................. 6 FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................................................. 6 County characteristics from participant perspectives.......................................................................................... 6 Geographicfactors........................................................................................................................................... 6 Economicfactors............................................................................................................................................. 7 Healthrelated issues........................................................................................................................................ 8 Decisionmaking. ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Factors contributing to the decision to consolidate......................................................................................... 8 Approaches to inform decision making. ......................................................................................................... 9 Resistanceto consolidation ........................................................................................................................... 1 Governancestructures....................................................................................................................................... 10 Implementation............... ................................................................................................................... 13 Initialoutcomes................................................................................................................................................. 1 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................... 1 CountyCharacteristics...................................................................................................................................... 1 Decisionmaking................................................................................................................................................ 1 GovernanceStructures ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Implementation and lessons learned ................................................................................................................. 16 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 17 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 18 AppendixA........................................................................................................................................................... 19 AppendixB...........................................................................................................................................................38 County Demographic Comparisons......................................................................................................................38 2 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-40 BACKGROUND In June 2012,the North Carolina General Assembly passed HB438, which allowed counties under the previous population threshold of 425,000 to consider consolidation of human services agencies and revision of governance structures. In January 2013,the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners directed staff to evaluate four(4) health and human services organizational and governance models to analyze specific options for the best human,services model for New Hanover County. A cross-functional team of community stakeholders,hereafter called the Study Group, was assembled to assist with the analysis. Specifically, the Study Group was tasked with analyzing the following options: 1) Continue with current organizational and governance structures for both the PHD and DSS. 2) Maintain current organizational structures and have the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) assume governing authority. 3) Create a Consolidated Human Services Agency (CHSA)with one governing board per the statutory requirements. 4) Create a CHSA and have the BOCC assume governing authority and establish a CHSA advisory board per statutory requirement. Subsequently,the Study Group requested assistance from the University of North Carolina Wilmington College of Health& Human Services (CHHS)to conduct interviews with representatives from counties that had undertaken consolidation of human services agencies. The purpose of these interviews was to provide an understanding of how other counties approached their evaluation and decision making process,which variables drove their decisions, and what ultimately contributed to the outcomes associated with implementation. The County Commissioners explicitly requested that a member of the Governing Board be interviewed to understand the elected officials' perspective. County administrative staff would also be interviewed to provide an operational perspective. The CHHS Research Team was also tasked with examining county characteristics, with the understanding that individual county characteristics and socio-demographic factors can impact the mix of services offered, service levels, and most effective service delivery models. The original request from the Study Group was for the CHHS Research Team to: 1) Complete interviews with the following: 3 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-41 a. The seven(7)counties that have taken action as a result of HB 438 (Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Columbus, Edgecombe, Montgomery, and Union counties) . The two (2) counties that met the previous population threshold and took action prior to HB 438 (Mecklenburg and Wake) c. The one (1) county that met the original population threshold but chose not to take any action (Guilford County) d. The ten(10) states that provide social services programs through a state-supervised and county-administered system(CA, CO, MN,ND,NJ,NY, OH,PA, VA, WI). 2) Provide a written report summarizing the results 3) Present key learning to the Study Group for consideration at their May 17th Meeting. Given time and resource constraints for both the Study Group and CHHS Research Team, it was agreed that the interview activity would focus on the NC counties identified above; however,responses were not obtained from the complete list of counties identified in the initial request of the Study Group. The CHHS Research Team,through the interview process, sought to identify perceptions of respondents related to the following issues important to the Study Group: 1) Why did the county decide to consolidate? 2) How did the county decide which model they wanted to adopt? 3) What process did they use to move forward on the consolidation? 4) What important lessons could NHCC learn from the process in these other counties? RESEARCH S RecruitmenVSample The New Hanover County Manager's staff contacted Chairs of Boards of County Commissioners and County Managers from nine counties across the state that had implemented a consolidation process and one county that had elected not to consolidate. They were contacted by email to ask them to participate in Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-42 audiotaped interviews with researchers from LTNCW. A second contact was made by phone for those who did not elect to participate, asking them again to be part of the research. The CHHS Research Team followed these invitations with telephone contacts to obtain consent to participate and set up times for interviews. Ten participants agreed to be part of the study: four were Chairs of Boards of County Commissioners and six were County Managers. Participants represented eight of the nine counties that had consolidated some part of their DSS and Health Department management structures; the county that elected not to consolidate was not represented in the sample. Only two counties had both the County Manager and Chair of the Board of County Commissioners participate in the interviews. Interview process When the contacts chose to participate,they received an email with the consent form and were asked to give verbal consent at the beginning of the interview. Interviews were conducted via telephone at a time convenient to the participant,with interviews lasting from 15 minutes to almost an hour. The researchers recorded the interviews using a speakerphone and an audio recorder. Interviewers also took notes to supplement the recorded interviews. Each interview was conducted using an interview guide developed by the NHC Manager's staff in coordination with the Study Group (Appendix A). Questions were targeted to each county's process and stage of consolidation. As part of the interview,respondents were asked to comment on specific individual county characteristics and socio-demographic factors of the county they serve in order to better understand the context in which these counties are delivering human services and how these factors might have influenced the decision to consolidate services. Secondary data was also analyzed to supplement participant perspectives and provide specifics on socio-demographic variables. 5 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-43 Data analysis The audio recordings were reviewed by the CHHS Research Team, who took detailed notes on participant responses. These notes were reviewed by all members of the team, who examined the responses for important themes and topics related to the primary questions underlying the study. Team members' analyses were then compared and discussed in a group setting, where the team identified shared findings and organized these into sections of the final report. The Research Team then assigned members to write specific sections of the report,which were reviewed and revised by all members into the final report. FINDINGS Respondents were asked to comment on county characteristics,governance structures, factors influencing decision making, implementation processes, and initial outcomes of consolidation. Responses related to these areas are discussed below. County characteristics from participant perspectives When respondents were asked about characteristics and socio-demographic factors of their counties, including how these might impact delivery of human services, respondents generally described their counties in terms of geographic,population, and economic perspectives. Some noted that their counties had poor population health indicators. County health-related characteristics obtained from secondary data sources are also included in the discussion that follows. Geographic factors. Respondents generally reported their counties to be large counties,based on geographic land mass. Respondents also indicated whether the county had largely urban, rural or a mix of urban and rural areas within the county. In comparison to the other counties surveyed,New Hanover County is the most densely populated, given small land mass,with Mecklenburg as the second smallest county based on land mass'. While both Mecklenburg and Wake counties have large populations, Wake County is also expansive in US Census Bureau.USA Counties. Retrieved from http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/usac/usacomp.pl. 6 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-44 terms of land mass. Wake County uses regional service centers to minimize travel distance for clients needing human services functions who live in rural areas of the county. Respondents from a number of the counties surveyed indicated that their county had recently experienced rapid growth. Brunswick County representatives noted that their population has seasonal variation due to tourism being a large industry in the county. These seasonal population swings can present challenges to delivery of services, in that employment rates among low wage service sector jobs also fluctuate during the tourist season. The representative from Union County felt that the growth they have experienced is primarily residential as opposed to business growth, and represents some limitations in gaining business revenue to offset cost of increased need for services being provided by the county. Buncombe County reported an in-migration of people retiring to the area or purchasing second homes in the area. Economic factors Other than Mecklenburg and Wake counties,most of the other counties surveyed indicated some kind of agricultural industry base in their communities. The Union County representative reported that, as a"bedroom community"near Mecklenburg County, a number of construction related jobs came to the area in recent years; but since the economic downturn and housing crisis of 2008, they have seen increased need for human services due to job losses and reduced income. Respondents from both Columbus and Buncombe counties indicated that high poverty rates and high rates of people on Medicaid presented challenges for service delivery. The participant in Brunswick County noted that while much of their population growth has been among affluent retirees,they have seen a doubling of children in foster care in the last year, likely a result of the economic downturn in the area. One respondent from Wake County noted that being high on list of good places to live is "both a blessing and a curse."For example,new companies bring jobs,but they may also bring in low wage jobs with people who will need to access human services. The recent recession continues to present some challenges for the county, and high growth presents infrastructure development challenges along with day to day service delivery issues. 7 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-45 Health related issues. Most of the respondents indicated something about the overall health status or mentioned particular health indicators for their county. For instance, Columbus county representatives indicated that they continue to be discouraged by being ranked as the unhealthiest county in the state by the County Health Rankings. The participant from Bladen County also noted that they have poor health outcomes in their county. One respondent from Buncombe County indicated that they are experiencing high levels of people being served by Medicaid and Medicare as well as high rates of people being uninsured. At least three counties indicated a sense that the overall health status of their county is influenced by surrounding areas. One respondent commented that human services issues "don't necessarily align with county borders,"thus requiring a broad approach to addressing these kinds of needs of the population. For example, following the closure of Dorothea Dix hospital, Wake County is working with other counties (i.e., Durham, Johnston and Cumberland)to create a managed care organization to help with delivery of mental health services. Extant data was also evaluated on specific socio-demographic variables among counties included in the study and New Hanover County. Detailed information can be found in Appendix B. Decision making Respondents were asked to discuss factors and processes that informed decision making efforts in the county related to the structural and governance changes they would implement. The following sections summarize participant responses related to decision making. Factors contributing to the decision to consolidate. Respondents identified five reasons for deciding to consolidate. The most consistent explanation focused on the challenge faced by counties of being responsible for funding and performance of Departments of Social Services and Health Departments, but having very little say over how they were managed. Under the former arrangement, County Commissioners did not have a say over hiring or firing the directors of these agencies,nor did they have control over the respective advisory boards. Both County Commissioners and County Managers were frustrated with these limitations, and they perceived that consolidation offered increased control. A few of the respondents also noted that issues within 8 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-46 the agencies—mostly with DSS boards, staff, and client concerns—drove their desire for the county to have more control and decision-making authority. Another reason for consolidation identified by respondents was a desire for a more holistic approach to service delivery to break down the physical and practical silos between the Department of Social Services and the Health Department. By integrating the units into one larger, consolidated agency,the expectation was that collaboration would be enhanced. This expectation was connected to another reason underlying the move to consolidation: the hope that a consolidated agency would improve service delivery by allowing all people working with the community to engage in more collaborative planning that would, as one respondent noted, "be on the front side of challenges," instead of responding after the fact. Several respondents also noted that another desired benefit was reducing costs for service provision, though most said they had not seen these effects as yet. In fact, one respondent suggested that New Hanover County Commissioners might want to think of reduced costs as a secondary benefit. That is,the focus should be more on enhanced service delivery rather than cost reduction. Another potential benefit highlighted by respondents was a desire to attain personnel management consistency between state employees working for county agencies and other county employees. Consistency across all agencies would simplify the job of county human resource officials, particularly related to grievance processes. Several respondents saw this simplification as a very strong reason for consolidating agencies. Several of the respondents in counties that had recently adopted the change in personnel management indicated that,though there appeared to be no problems in and post transition,there have been no new filed grievances to "test''the consolidated county personnel system. Approaches to inform decision making. When asked how the county government began the process of exploring consolidation, few discussed using any existing data in their decision making process. Some county representatives indicated that they had received technical assistance from the UNC School of Government, while others seemed to move forward without external support. Several respondents described their counties holding public hearings, and some held meetings with the existing DSS and Health Department advisory 9 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-47 boards. Meetings with the advisory boards seemed to be especially important when these boards were being disbanded. Some counties also held forums with DSS staff who were being converted from the state to the county system. Participants indicated that these staff forums were more informational in nature,providing information about the shift from the state to county personnel systems. Individuals interviewed for the study shared their perspectives on the county's approach to the consolidation process. One respondent felt that the consolidation was seen as a step forward,building on existing strengths to continue a history of being on the forefront of innovation. Another respondent cautioned that the process would be a long one that would take time to fully implement. Each step in the process was viewed as one stop on a longer journey. Resistance to consolidation. Based on the respondents' perspectives, most of the resistance to consolidation originated in the county departments of social services. Several respondents indicated that DSS Directors and Chairs of the DSS Advisory Boards had spoken out publicly against the consolidation, expressing concerns related to (1) a loss of control over social service delivery, (2) a lack of understanding of social service issues by the Board of County Commissioners, and (3) a lack of required DSS representation on a new CHSA Advisory Board. Respondents also identified that DSS employees raised concerns about transitioning from the state to the county personnel system. Governance structures Respondents were asked to identify the governance structures for their county human services agencies. Some of the respondents did not know specifics of board representation; in these instances, county public records were reviewed to ascertain advisory board structure and makeup. Table 1 outlines different governance structures for counties surveyed in the study. 10 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-48 Table 1. Governance Structures for Counties Surveyed County Date of Governing Board Advisory Committee Agency Structure Consolidation Makeup Bladen 11/13/2012 BOCC(9 members) 11 member Advisory Consolidated agency charged Committee with with Health and DSS duties. representation as required by BB 438 and includes 3 at large members.At large members have prior experience on DSS board. Brunswick 8/6/2012 BOCC Per statutory Consolidated agency. requirements-mirrors former health board. New board has no rulemaking or enforcement authority. Buncombe 2005 created its Human Services Board Had previously created Had prior existing consolidation Human Services consolidated HHS of administrative services Support Team; board in addition to (finance,planning,personnel) summer 2012,moved separate DSS and to CHSA Health Boards. New board(appointed 9/4/2012)has 16 members(including one Commissioner) Columbus 11/2012 BOCC governs DSS; NIA Maintained separate agencies Health Board governs Health Dept. Mecklenburg 2008 Boards consolidated in BOCC(9 members) Consolidated agencies 2008 and BOCC assumed serves as board for control as consolidated health,DSS,mental board health and substance abuse Union 2/18/2013 Consolidated Human Had an option to go up Consolidated agencies Services Board to 25,instead went to 17 members.Met the statute requirements, and also has 4 general public members.Prior commissioner who served on health board to be appointed to new consolidated board as Commissioner representative Wake 1996 Human Services 18-member board Consolidated agency(only Advisory Board includes 4 general existing CHSA in state prier to public representatives passage of HB 438) and 4"consumer" positions.One of the county commissioners is the liaison to the Human Services Board. 11 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-49 Advisory board structures are dictated by the statute and include specific expertise that must be present on a CHSA Advisory board, which closely mirrors prior Health Board requirements. Most counties who have established a separate CHSA board reported having a BOCC member on the CHSA Advisory Board. In some of the counties that were surveyed,prior board members from the Health or DSS boards have been appointed to new CHSA Board. One county established a nominating committee and asked them to submit 25 names so that the BOCC could make the appointments. At least two of the counties surveyed have added public and consumer representatives to the CHSA board. County Commissioner respondents noted that some of the challenges of having the BOCC be the governing body included the Commissioners not having specific expertise for decision making on human services issues. They reported being heavily reliant on County Government staff or advisory board members for specific expertise. In one case, where the BOCC serves as the governing body for DSS, the DSS Director makes monthly reports to BOCC. In this same county, the respondent indicated that there were some uncertainties about whether the DSS Director reported to the County Manager or BOCC. A Commission Member in another county felt disconnected from the DSS and Health Department staff, as the County Manager managed all relationships between the BOCC and Advisory Board and departmental staff. Most respondents indicated no knowledge of specific advocacy groups' involvement in advisory board activities. One county's CHSA board has a number of subcommittees, one of which is an Advocacy committee. One respondent commented that advisory board members may be able to promote and advance an issue even when the BOCC may not be ready. Another respondent indicated that advisory board meetings were open to the public and that community members engage frequently. Overall,respondents indicated that the CHSA board serves as a voice and advocate for the community. All members are voting members, as per statutory requirements. 12 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-50 Implementation Respondents reported using multiple communication strategies when implementing the desired organizational and governance changes. These strategies included public forums and site visits to affected agency personnel. Presentations to staff addressed concerns about job loss as a result of the consolidation and the challenges of changing from state to county personnel systems. In two counties, staff was reassured that position elimination would happen through attrition. Staff in another county received training on the new county personnel grievance procedures. Respondents in a few of the counties surveyed identified two implementation challenges related to infrastructure issues. Respondents in several counties reported challenges with DSS and Health Departments' separate and sometimes outdated information systems,which made it difficult to coordinate service delivery and billing. Respondents also noted that the units had separate physical facilities, which made coordinated service delivery a challenge. Initial co Some respondents reported that the consolidation has resulted positive outcomes, including a more client-centered, one-stop-shop approach to service delivery and the ability to cross-train personnel. Two areas where reported early efficiencies are being realized are in client intake and Medicaid billing. A number of participants noted that redundancies resulting from having separate departments were not at the service delivery level but instead at the management and administrative support levels. At least two of the respondents recommended that considerations about whether or not to consolidate should be about the provision of services versus cost-savings. Several respondents indicated that they were still in the early stages of consolidation, with an interim or newly appointed person in the role of CHSA Director. Those with an interim Director reported putting progress on building, processes, and structures on hold as they waited for the permanent CHSA Director to be appointed. 13 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-51 One respondent commented that people who wanted the consolidation to work, stayed, and those who didn't support the consolidated model left on their own accord. DISCUSSION The following sections summarize the Research Team's impressions of the findings discussed above. While we do not provide specific recommendations about the model to be adopted in New Hanover County,this section highlight issues that the Study Group might consider when deliberating on consolidation and governance options. County Characteristics Each of the counties interviewed for the study provided examples of specific county characteristics that impacted their ability to provide human services to their citizens,but most comments related to known social determinants of health. Factors noted by respondents as influencing human service delivery include population size, growth trends and other economic indicators, such as unemployment and poverty rates. New Hanover County has both similar and dissimilar characteristics with the counties interviewed for the study. Considerations of these social determinants should be examined for New Hanover County when determining anticipated human services delivery needs,both now and in the future. The Research Team identified a recurrent theme that any decision making related to consolidation or governance should include consideration of the stakeholders in the county. Additional factors that should be assessed include county strengths and weaknesses in terms of interagency relationships, leadership, and political Will. Decision According to respondents in this study, major drivers influencing decision making included: 1) a desire for the BOCC to realize more control over health and social service functions, especially in those counties where prior issues had arisen (most commonly reported as being related to DSS leadership and oversight); 14 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-52 2) a desire to improve collaboration and enhance service delivery,potentially yielding cost savings and efficiencies; and 3) consistency in human resource management across all agencies within the county government structure. Many of the participants interviewed indicated that their county had held public forums and meetings to obtain stakeholder feedback and keep affected agency staff informed of goals,purposes, and progress towards consolidation. Among all respondents, the need to maintain open dialogue and to ensure open communication among stakeholders seemed to be paramount for successful implementation of changes in organizational or governance structure. Pushback against consolidation was reported to come primarily from DSS leadership and employees. Respondents reported that these stakeholders raised concerns about the consolidation of agencies or adoption of new governance structures, worried that the unique perspectives of people who had worked in and advocated for social services would be lost. Some counties were intentional about including DSS leaders and advocates throughout the planning process. One participant indicated that gaining consensus among the BOCC on the decision to consolidate would be favorable. Other respondents recommended that the Study Group and BOCC seek out and listen to all stakeholder perspectives in support or opposition to consolidation of these agencies. Governance Structures In counties where relationships were strong between existing advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners,there were no perceived issues resulting from the change of governance structure. In addition, respondents from counties lacking clear authority and reporting structures were more likely to report issues and challenges in the consolidation process. Chairs of Boards of County Commissioners who were serving as the CHSA governing bodies reported that they did not always have expertise to make decisions and often were heavily reliant on County staff and advisory board members to provide this expertise. 15 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-53 Columbus County was the only county represented in the interviews that did not choose to consolidate agencies. In this county,the BOCC assumed governing authority over DSS and the Health Board remained the oversight authority for the health department. Reflecting on the findings on governance,the Research Team found that clarity of roles, responsibility, and oversight was directly related to facilitating successful transition in consolidation and governance. Implementation and lessons learned While many counties quickly made the decision to consolidate, a number of respondents indicated that it would be important to take sufficient time for implementation. Specific challenges to implementation that were highlighted by respondents involved facility and infrastructure requirements. Participants also related that efficiencies in staffmg were addressed through attrition as opposed to elimination of positions. Others related that additional efficiencies could be realized through reorganization of support functions(i.e., finance, planning), as opposed to service delivery. A common theme among respondents about the benefits of the consolidation process was that"things were going well so far,"but that it was too soon to identify lessons learned or to measure any impacts of consolidation on service delivery and client outcomes. Given comments by respondents, the Research Team provides the following summary recommendations: • Know your county • Involve all internal and external stakeholders • Don't underestimate the complexity of the delivery of health and human services • Regardless of the legislative mandate for board compositions, consider additional positions to reflect perspectives of consumers, DSS staff and leaders, and community agencies 16 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-54 LIMITATIONS Given the abbreviated time frame for the research process and the limited resources available to complete the research,there were some understandable limitations to this study. The Research Team was not able to get response or participation from all of the County Managers and Chairs of the BQCC. Indeed, Guilford County, which is the one county that elected neither to consolidate nor to change governance structure, did not participate in the study, leaving the team unable to report on potential reasons for this decision. Further, most of the electing counties were still early in the process of consolidation, and any long term implications are unknown. Finally,this study does not include perspectives from staff or service recipients of CHSAs, so the implications of consolidation for these stakeholders are not reflected in this report. These perspectives would be important for consideration or fixrther research. 17 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-55 AICKNOWLEDGMENTS The CHHS Research Team would like to acknowledge the financial support of the UNCW College of Health and Human Services, who provided resources and funding for the research;the practical support of the staff of the New Hanover County Government,who drafted the research guide and established the first contact with the research participants; and the assistance of all of the participants who agreed to be a part of this research project. Without the candid and thoughtful input of County Managers and Chairs of County Boards of Commissioners, we would have been unable to prepare this report. We also would like to thank Dr. Andrea Jones, an incoming faculty member in the School of Social Work,who conducted many of the interviews. We would also like to thank the New Hanover County Health and Human Service Study Group for inviting us to assist on this project and for offering their service to New Hanover County. As residents of the county, the CHHS Research Team is invested in the outcome of this process for ourselves, our families, our university colleagues, our students, and the many clients with whom we and our students work. We hope that this report helps the Study Group in its evaluation,the County Manager in making his recommendations,and the Board of County Commissioners as they deliberate on the structural future of New Hanover County health and human service delivery. 18 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-56 Appendix Services NHC Health & Human Interview i 19 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-57 Table of Contents Introductionand Purpose.................................................................................................................................................. 1 Previously Eligible Counties WakeCounty.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 MecklenburgCounty............................................................................................................................................. S GuildfordCounty................................................................................................................................................... 8 NC Counties Who Have Taken Action Pursuant to S.L. 2012-126 Buncombe............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Bladen, Brunswick, Edgecombe, Montgomery, and Union............................................................................ 13 Columbus............................................................................................................................................................... 16 20 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-58 Introduction and Purpose In January of 2012,the New Hanover County Board of County Commissioners directed staff to evaluate four (4) health and human services organizational and governance models to identify which is the best human services model for New Hanover County. A cross-functional team of community stakeholders was assembled to assist with the analysis. The purpose of these interviews is to provide an understanding of how other counties approached their evaluation and decision making process,which variables drove their decisions and what ultimately contributed to the success or failure of their implementation/execution. Further, understanding that individual county characteristics and socio-demographic factors can impact the mix of services offered, service levels and most effective service delivery models, it is our desire to understand the context in which these decisions were made and extent to which they are applicable or analogous to New Hanover County. Finally,the County Commissioners explicitly requested that a member of the Governing Board be interviewed to understand the elected officials' perspective. County administrative staff should also be interviewed to provide an operational perspective. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-59 Wake County Interview Guide Interviewer: interviewee: Date of Interview: Position: Introduction: Self introduction, name and general affiliation Purpose of Study: New Hanover County is trying to evaluate what is the best human services business model and governance structure for its citizens. Wake County was the very first CHSA organization. We are interested in understanding more about Wake County's experience before, during and after consolidation. Interview Questions County Characteristics How would you describe the economic, demographic and community characteristics of Wake County? How and to what extent do these characteristics impact how you provide health and human services within Wake County? Are there any unique challenges or issues faced by Wake County? Emerging issues? How are these impacting health and human services in Wake County today? How are they anticipated to impact services and service delivery in the future? Decision Making Thinking back to the 1996, what initially prompted the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to consider alternative structures? At the time it was considered, how would you describe the working relationships between the: a) BOCC and the Board of Health? BOCC and the Social Services Board? b) County Administration and the Director of Health and Social Services Director? What role did the ability to include Mental Health services play in the decision making process? If Mental Health services had not been allowed to be consolidated, would the model still have made sense for Wake County? What type of evaluation process did the Board follow?What analysis or data did the BOCC evaluate? 22 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-60 Were other organizational and governance structures explored? If so, which ones? What ultimately drove the BOCC's decision to consolidate into a single agency? What ultimately drove the BOCC's decision to create an independently governed CHSA Board? Governance&Administration Could you describe the size, structure and governance of Wake County's CHSA Board?Are all board members voting members? What role do Advisory committees and Advocacy groups perform within the structure? To what extent do members of the community feel that they have a "voice"? What are some of the challenges and benefits of the current CHSA board structure? Is this the original board structure or have there been changes since inception? If changes, could you share more about the changes made and what they were designed to address? How has the relationship between the County Manager and CHSA Director changed or evolved over this same time period? What have been some of the benefits and challenges with having a single CHSA Director that reports to the County Manager? Implementation Could you talk a little bit about the process that you used to implement consolidation? Could you describe your plan /the steps that you took? What were some of the biggest challenges that you faced during implementation?Any surprises (positive or negative)? Were there actions that you took that you found to be particularly helpful? How automated were DSS and Health at the time of consolidation? To what extent did that help or hinder the consolidation process? In hindsight, knowing what you know now, are there any elements of the consolidation implementation that you would have done differently? Are there any watch outs or additional considerations NHC should bear in mind? 23 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-61 Personnel Did you elect for your employees to remain subject to the State Personnel Act (SPA) or did you bring them under Wake County's personnel policy? Could you talk about the factors that contributed to that decision? Have you encountered any personnel or HR related challenges since consolidating? (Turnover? Recruitment?Training? Personnel Policy related issues?etc.) If so, how have you addressed them? Outcome What benefits were you hoping to achieve with the consolidation? (Cost savings?Cost avoidance or lower growth in casts? More streamlined service? Better coordinated services and outcomes?) To what extent were you able to realize these projected benefits? Were they similar in magnitude to what was originally expected? How long did it take before you started seeing benefits from the consolidation? Have there been any particular challenges or issues that have negatively impacted agency performance or client/patient outcomes? If so, how have those been addressed? Finally, how would you describe the performance of the consolidated agency today? Closing: Anything else you would like to tell us or that you feel we should know? Is there anything that we should have asked but did not?Thank you for your assistance and your time. 24 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-62 Mecklenburg County Interview Guide Interviewer: Interviewee: Date of Interview: Position: Introduction: Self introduction, name and general affiliation Purpose of Study: New Hanover County is trying to evaluate what is the best human services business model and governance structure for its citizens. Mecklenburg created the first consolidated human services agency board governed by a BOCC. We are interested in understanding more about Mecklenburg's experiences with this governance option both when it governed independent agencies and since consolidating into a CHSA. Interview Questions County Characteristics How would you describe the economic, demographic and community characteristics of Mecklenburg County? How and to what extent do these characteristics impact how you provide health and human services within Mecklenburg County? Are there any unique challenges or issues faced by Mecklenburg County? Emerging issues? How are these impacting health and human services in Mecklenburg County today? How are they anticipated to impact services and service delivery in the future? Historical Perspective Do you have any perspective, or is there any organizational lore, about what initially prompted the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)to: a) Consider consolidating governance into a single CHSA Board back in 1984? b) Assume full governance of that board vs. appointing independent directors? Decision Making Mecklenburg operated for a very longtime,from 1984 until 2008,with a BOCC CHSA Board over independently run agencies. What were some of the positives and negatives (benefits and challenges) associated with this business model? 25 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-63 In 2008, what prompted the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)to re-evaluate and decide to consider alternative organizational structures? (Was there a triggering event, etc.?) At the time a CHSA was being considered, how would you describe the working relationships between the: a) BOCC and the Board of Health? BOCC and the Social Services Board? b) County Administration and the Director of Health and Social Services Director? What role did the ability to include Mental Health services play in the decision making process? If Mental Health services had not been allowed to be consolidated, would the model still have made sense for Mecklenburg County? What type of evaluation process did the Board follow?What analysis or data did the BOCC evaluate? Were other organizational and governance structures explored? If so, which ones? What ultimately drove the BOCC's decision to consolidate into a single agency? Implementation Could you talk a little bit about the process that you used to implement the CHSA consolidation?Could you describe your plan/the steps that you took? What were some of the biggest challenges that you faced during implementation?Any surprises (positive or negative)? Were there actions that you took that you found to be particularly helpful? How automated were DSS and Health at the time of consolidation? To what extent did that help or hinder the consolidation process? In hindsight, knowing what you know now, are there any elements of the consolidation implementation that you would have done differently? Are there any watch outs that NHC should be aware of or additional considerations it should bear in mind? Personnel When you created the CHSA, did you elect for your employees to remain subject to the State Personnel Act (SPA) or did you bring them under Mecklenburg County's personnel policy? Could you talk about the factors that contributed to that decision? 26 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-64 Have you encountered any personnel or HR related challenges since consolidating? (Turnover? Recruitment?Training? Personnel Policy related issues?etc.) If so, how have you addressed them? Governance Historically, the Mecklenburg BOCC has assumed governing responsibilities for the CHSA Board. What are some of the challenges and benefits of this kind of governing structure? Within the existing structure,what role do Advisory committees and Advocacy groups perform within the structure? To what extent do members of the community feel that they have a "voice"? Recently there have been some concerns raised in the press about this model as it relates to DSS. In your mind,to what extent are the issues encountered by DSS attributable to structural or personnel concerns in DSS vs. attributable to oversight and governance? Is Mecklenburg considering making any changes in governance (or board operations) as a result of what it has learned? Do you have any advice or watch outs for NHC if it were to consider a similar structure? Outcome What benefits were you hoping to achieve with the CHSA consolidation? (Cost savings?Cost avoidance or lower growth in costs? More streamlined service? Better coordinated services and outcomes?) To what extent were you able to realize these projected benefits? Were they similar in magnitude to what was originally expected? How long did it take before you started seeing benefits from the consolidation? Have there been any particular challenges or issues that have negatively impacted agency performance or client/patient outcomes? If so, how have those been addressed? Finally, how would you describe the performance of the consolidated agency today? Closing: Anything else you would like to tell us or that you feel we should know? Is there anything that we should have asked but did not?Thank you for your assistance and your time. 27 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-65 Guilford County Interview Guide Interviewer: Interviewee: Date of Interview: Position: Introduction: Self introduction, name and general affiliation Purpose of Study: New Hanover County is trying to evaluate what is the best human services business model and governance structure for its citizens. Guilford County met the 425,000 population threshold long before HB438 was passed, yet elected to remain exactly as it was. We are interested in understanding Guilford County's experiences and decisions to remain independent. Interview Questions County Characteristics How would you describe the economic, demographic and community characteristics of Guilford County? How and to what extent do these characteristics impact how you provide health and human services within Guilford County? Are there any unique challenges or issues faced by Guilford County? Emerging issues? How are these impacting health and human services in Guilford County today? How are they anticipated to impact services and service delivery in the future? Orp,anization and Governance Could you describe the structure and governance of your human services agencies? How would you describe the working relationships between the: a) Guilford BOCC and the Board of Health? Guilford BOCC and the Social Services Board? b) County Administration and the Director of Health and Social Services Director? How effectively do the Health and DSS agencies coordinate and cooperate with one another? How would you describe the overall efficiency and effectiveness (performance outcomes) of Guildford's health and social services agencies? How automated are your current DSS and Health operations? What are some of the benefits and challenges of the current structure? 28 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-66 To what extent do members of the community feel that they have a "voice" in services governance and operations? Has Guilford ever evaluated or implemented programs to consolidate operations between human services agencies (e.g. share backroom operations) or looked at functionally consolidating programs (combined health & DSS work teams or co-location, etc.)? If yes, could you describe what was done? What type of analysis did you perform? What were the expected benefits? How long did it take to implement?Were the projected results achieved? What were the key learnings or watch outs? Has the Guilford BOCC ever evaluated: a) Assuming responsibility for a human services board? b) Consolidating human services boards into a CHSA Board? c) Consolidating into a CHSA? d) Other organizational and governance structures explored? If so, which ones? If yes, what type of evaluation process did the Board follow?What analysis or data did the BOCC evaluate?What factors contributed to the decision to remain with the Status Quo? Does Guilford have plans to evaluate any organizational or structural changes in the future? Closing: Anything else you would like to tell us or that you feel we should know? Is there anything that we should have asked but did not?Thank you for your assistance and your time. 29 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-67 Buncombe County Interview Guide Interviewer: Interviewee: Date of Interview: Position: Introduction: Self introduction, name and general affiliation Purpose of Study: New Hanover County is trying to evaluate what is the best human services business model and governance structure for its citizens. Back in 2005, Buncombe created its Human Services Support Team which essentially consolidated backroom operations. Over time, Buncombe has created other initiatives/formal collaborations between various agencies and programs. We are interested in understanding your experiences with "operational consolidation" (pre-HB438) as well as those since formally becoming CHSA. Interview Questions County Characteristics How would you describe the economic, demographic and community characteristics of Buncombe County? How and to what extent do these characteristics impact how you provide health and human services within Buncombe County? Are there any unique challenges or issues faced by Buncombe County? Emerging issues? How are these impacting health and human services in Buncombe County today? How are they anticipated to impact services and service delivery in the future? Historical Perspective Could you walk us through a history of some of Buncombe previous efforts at functional or operational consolidation? (Specifically, the Human Services Support Team and Various Collaboration efforts such as: Child Protective Services and School Nurses Geo-Districts, Nurse Social Work Teams, Under Six etc.) For each initiative: a) What specifically did you do? And how did it change the way you do business? b) What result were you trying to achieve?And did you achieve it? c) What kind of evaluation process did you do? Who was involved (BOCC, Administration, individual agencies, etc.)? 30 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-68 d) What sort of barriers or challenges did you face with implementation? And how did you overcome them? Decision Making Given the success of various functional consolidation efforts to date, what prompted the Buncombe Board of County Commissioners to consider creating a Consolidate Human Services Agency (CHSA)? At the time consolidation was considered, how would you describe the working relationships between the: a) BOCC and the Board of Health? BOCC and the Social Services Board? b) County Administration and the Director of Health and Social Services Director? What type of evaluation process did the Board follow?What analysis or data did the BOCC evaluate? Were other organizational and governance structures explored? If so, which ones? What ultimately drove the BOCC's decision to consolidate into a single agency? What ultimately drove the BOCC's decision to create an independently governed CHSA Board? Governance &Administration Could you describe the size, structure and governance of Buncombe County's CHSA Board?Are all board members voting members? What role do Advisory committees and Advocacy groups perform within the structure? To what extent do members of the community feel that they have a "voice"? What are some of the challenges and benefits of the CHSA board structure? What have been some of the benefits and challenges with having a single CHSA Director that reports to the County Manager? Implementation Could you talk a little bit about the process that you used to implement consolidation? Could you describe your plan/the steps that you took? 31 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-69 What were some of the biggest challenges that you faced during implementation?Any surprises (positive or negative)? Were there actions that you took that you found to be particularly helpful? How automated were DSS and Health at the time of consolidation? To what extent did that help or hinder the consolidation process? In hindsight, knowing what you know now, are there any elements of the consolidation implementation that you would have done differently? Are there any watch outs or additional considerations NHC should bear in mind? Personnel When you created the CHSA, did you elect for your employees to remain subject to the State Personnel Act (SPA) or did you bring them under Wake County's personnel policy? Could you talk about the factors that contributed to that decision? Have you encountered any personnel or HR related challenges since consolidating? (Turnover? Recruitment?Training? Personnel Policy related issues?etc.) If so, how have you addressed them? Outcome What benefits were you hoping to achieve with the CHSA that you were unable to achieve via functional/operational consolidation? To what extent have you able to realize these projected benefits? How long did it take before you started seeing benefits from the consolidation? Have there been any particular challenges or issues that have negatively impacted agency performance or client/patient outcomes? If so, how have those been addressed? Finally, how would you describe the performance of the consolidated agency today as compared to before consolidation? Closing: Anything else you would like to tell us or that you feel we should know? is there anything that we should have asked but did not?Thank you for your assistance and your time. 32 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-70 Bladen, Brunswick, Edgecombe, Montgomery, and Union Counties Interview Guide Interviewer: Interviewee: Date of Interview: Position: Introduction: Self introduction, name and general affiliation Purpose of Study: New Hanover County is trying to evaluate what is the best human services business model and governance structure for its citizens. We are interested in learning more about county's decisions to reorganize human services under HB348, and your experience implementing those decisions. Interview Questions County Characteristics How would you describe the economic, demographic and community characteristics of your county? How and to what extent do these characteristics impact how you provide health and human services within your county? Are there any unique challenges or issues faced by your county? Emerging issues? How are these impacting health and human services in your county today? How are they anticipated to impact services and service delivery in the future? Decision Makine What initially prompted the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to consider alternative structures? At the time it was considered, how would you describe the working relationships between the: a) BOCC and the Board of Health? BOCC and the Social Services Board? b) County Administration and the Director of Health and Social Services Director? What type of evaluation process did the Board follow? What analysis or data did the BOCC evaluate? Were other organizational and governance structures explored? If so,which ones? What were the key variables that ultimately drove the BOCC's decision? Governance &Administration Could you describe the size, structure and governance of your CHSA Board? 33 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-71 Bladen, Brunswick, Montgomery: What prompted the decision for the BOCC to assume governance responsibilities for the CHSA Board vs. have an independent board? Edgecombe and Union:Are all board members voting members? What role do Advisory committees and Advocacy groups perform? To what extent do members of the community feel that they have a "voice"? What are some of the challenges and benefits of the current CHSA board structure? How has the relationship between the County Manager and CHSA Director changed or evolved since consolidation began? Does the CHSA Director report to the County Manager? If so,what have been some of the benefits and challenges you've experienced with this model? Implementation Could you talk a little bit about the process that you used to implement consolidation?Could you describe your plan/the steps that you took? What were some of the biggest challenges that you faced during implementation?Any surprises (positive or negative)? Were there actions that you took that you found to be particularly helpful? How automated were DSS and Health at the time of consolidation? To what extent did that help or hinder the consolidation process? In hindsight, knowing what you know now, are there any elements of the consolidation implementation that you would have done differently? Are there any watch outs or additional considerations NHC should bear in mind? Personnel When you created the CHSA, did you elect for your employees to remain subject to the State Personnel Act (SPA) or did you bring them under Wake County's personnel policy? Could you talk about the factors that contributed to that decision? Have you encountered any personnel or HR related challenges since consolidating? (Turnover? Recruitment? Training? Personnel Policy related issues?etc.) If so, how have you addressed them? 34 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-72 Outcome What benefits were you hoping to achieve with the consolidation? (Cost savings?Cost avoidance or lower growth in costs? More streamlined service? Better coordinated services and outcomes?) To what extent were you able to realize these projected benefits? Were they similar in magnitude to what was originally expected? Have you started seeing benefits from the consolidation? How long did it take? Have there been any particular challenges or issues that have negatively impacted agency performance or client/patient outcomes? If so, how have those been addressed? Finally, how would you describe the performance of the consolidated agency today? Closing: Anything else you would like to tell us or that you feel we should know? Is there anything that we should have asked but did not?Thank you for your assistance and your time. 35 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-73 Columbus County Interview Guide Interviewer: Interviewee: Date of Interview: Position: Introduction: Self introduction, name and general affiliation Purpose of Study: New Hanover County is trying to evaluate what is the best human services business model and governance structure for its citizens. We are interested in learning more about Columbus County's experience with assuming governance responsibilities for the DSS Board. Interview Questions County Characteristics How would you describe the economic, demographic and community characteristics of Columbus County? How and to what extent do these characteristics impact how you provide health and human services within Columbus County? Are there any unique challenges or issues faced by Columbus County? Emerging issues? How are these impacting health and human services in Columbus County today? How are they anticipated to impact services and service delivery in the future? Decision Makine What initially prompted the Columbus Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)to consider alternative governance structures? At the time they considered assuming governance of the DSS Board, how would you describe the working relationships between the: a) BOCC and the Board of Health? BOCC and the Social Services Board? b) County Administration and the Director of Health and Social Services Director? What type of evaluation process did the Board follow? What analysis or data did the BOCC evaluate? Were other organizational and governance structures explored? If so, which ones? What were the key variables that ultimately drove the BOCC's decision? Governance &Administration 36 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-74 What role do Advisory committees and Advocacy groups perform for DSS? To what extent do members of the community feel that they have a "voice"? What are some of the challenges and benefits of BOCC governance of the DSS Board? What is the reporting relationship for DSS? Does the Director report to the County Manager? If so, what have been some of the benefits and challenges you've experienced with this model? Implementation Could you talk a little bit about the process that you used to implement the change? Could you describe your plan /the steps that you took? How did you communicate your intentions to the DSS Board? To the public? What were some of the biggest challenges that you faced during implementation?Any surprises (positive or negative)? Were there actions that you took that you found to be particularly helpful? In hindsight, knowing what you know now, is there anything that you would have done differently? Are there any watch outs or additional considerations NHC should bear in mind? Outcome What benefits were you hoping to achieve with the BOCC assuming governance responsibility for DSS? To what extent have you been able to accomplish what you desired? How long did it take before you started seeing benefits from this action? Have there been any particular challenges or issues that have negatively impacted agency performance or client outcomes? If so, how have those been addressed? Closing: Anything else you would like to tell us or that you feel we should know? Is there anything that we should have asked but did not?Thank you for your assistance and your time. 37 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-75 Appendix County e is Comparisons 38 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-76 County Characteristics-population demographics Secondary data from the US Census as well as North Carolina Center for Health Statistics was examined to identify population demographic similarities and differences with New Hanover County. All data presented is based on 2012 figures, in order to present annual estimates. Figure 1 presents general population estimates for each of the counties surveyed along with new Hanover County,based on data from the US Census [1]. Buncombe and Union Counties are most similar to New Hanover County in terms of number of individuals living in the county. Select County Population Estimates, 2012 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 _.. 600,000 _ 400,000 200,000 — _. 0 .......� Figure]. Select county population estimates, 2012 [1 We also examined population estimate data for specific aggregate groups within each of the counties. Extant data was analyzed for children and the elderly, given that some individuals from both of these vulnerable populations may be in need of services from the health department and/or social services. Figure 2 presents data for individuals under the age of 18 years for the counties interviewed in comparison to estimates for New Hanover County. Figure 3 presents comparison data on individuals over the age of 65 years. With the exception of Union County which has a higher percentage of children under the age of 18,most of the other counties have similar percentages of this aggregate group among the general county population For older adults,Mecklenburg County has a lower percentage of individuals over the age of 65,while Brunswick County has a higher percentage of older adults than other counties analyzed in the study. 39 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-77 _........................._......_..... _......_.......................................................................................................................----------........-- ........ I Select County Population Estimates- Individuals under 18 40.00% - Years of Age, 2012 30.00% 20.00% w 10.00% ._ 0.00% Figure 2. Select county population estimates- individuals under 18 years of age, 2012 [1 Select County Population Estimates- Individuals over 65 Years of Age, 2012 25.00% - 20.00% .. - 10.00% _. 15.00% 5.00% 0.00% 4- —. L Figure 3. Select county population estimates- individuals over 65 years of age, 2012. 1 Economic data for each of the counties surveyed were also examined. Specific variables included median income level,the percentage of people living in poverty and unemployment rates.This information can be used to estimate need for provision of human services functions, such as public health and social services as well as other economic indicators,including factors affecting tax base for financing of services. Figure 4 presents data on median household income for counties surveyed;Figure 5 demonstrates percentage of Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-78 the population in the county living below the Federal Poverty Level($23,050 for a family of four),2 and Figure 6 displays annual unemployment rates for counties included in the study. . Select County Median Income, 2012 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 �- $30,000 �— $20,000 . s _ e Y $10,000 --- -.....m.. _3.-. ._._... ......, ... ....., ....... ..,..--.. ��J�\, e��Ji� Figure 4. County Median Income Levels, 2012[1] Of the counties surveyed in this study,Brunswick and Buncombe are the two counties that most closely resemble median income estimates for New Hanover County.Mecklenburg,Union and Wake counties have higher median income levels,while Bladen and Columbus have lower median income, as compared to New Hanover County. 2 htt i aspe. hs.eov/poverty/12ooverty.s tml 41 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-79 Population Percent of Federal Poverty Level,, 2012 25.00% . 20.00% 15.0090 x. 10.0095 5.0085 0.00% t , `1 L '04 °y� e�� Figure 5. County Poverty Estimates, 2012 In terms of percentages of people living below poverty, Brunswick and Buncombe have similar rates to New Hanover County,while Columbus and Bladen have higher poverty rates.Given higher median income levels, it is not surprising that Union,Wake and Mecklenburg have lower poverty rates.However, these counties may have higher numbers of people in need of human services, in that they have higher total population levels. Annual Select County Unemployment Rates.. 14.0 —— - 12.0 - 10.0 __.. 8.0 ---— _... .. _ 1 6.0 �- 4.0 _ M. 2.0 .. �Jt46 Figure 6 Select County Unemployment Rates, 2012[2] 42 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-80 County characteristics-selected health outcomes Additional data was examined to provide a snapshot comparison between the counties surveyed in the study and New Hanover County on select health outcomes. According to the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute,New Hanover County was ranked 10'h in the state for both health outcomes and health factors in 2012. Of the counties surveyed in the study, only Mecklenburg,Union and Wake counties rank higher on these measures. (See Table 1). Table ]. County Health Rankings (2012) [ ] Health Outcomes Health Factors Bladen 97 89 Brunswick 47 33 Buncombe 14 6 Columbus 100 91 Duplin 55 81 Mecklenburg 4 19 New Hanover 10 10 Union 3 7 Wake 1 2 The County Health Rankings data also provides sub-ranking of counties on specific outcome variables, including social and economic factors as well as specific population health related factors, such as access to care,employment, income and family and social support. Table 2 presents ranking data among counties surveyed in the study for these variables. 43 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-81 Table 2 County Rankings based on select variables, 2012 [3] Social and Economic Factors Employment Income Family and County Social Support Bladen 87 68 66 98 Brunswick 43 55 39 38 Buncombe 11 9 25 20 Columbus 91 77 98 94 Mecklenburg 34 46 9 35 New Hanover 22 22 19 32 Union 4 28 1 4 Wake 3 9 3 13 44 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-82 References [1]US Census Bureau.North Carolina QuickFacts. Retrieved from htt // / fd/states/37000.htmi. M—Auickfacts.census.goy q [2] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012).Local area unemployment statistics. Retrieved from b—q://www.bis.gov/lau/#miyaa , [3] University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute(2012). County health rankings and roadmaps. North Carolina. Retrieved from btip://www.cougt.yhealthrankings.org/#4pp/north- carolina/2012/rankings/outcomes/overall. [41 US Census Bureau.USA Counties. Retrieved from hqp://censtats.census.govlcgi- bin/usac/usacop.pl. 45 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-83 Appendix E Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-84 1. During the past 12 months, how frequently did you reach out a colleague on in another program or service in your department to l in additional needed services for a client 1 patient or their immediate a il - a r? 0. Daily 0 Weekly 0. Monthly Quarterly 0 Annually Q Never . During the past 12 months, how frequently did you reach out a colleague working in a different NHC department to help obtain additional needed services for a client 1 patient or their immediate family-member? 0 Daily 0 Weekly 0 Monthly Q Quarterly iD Annually 0. Never 3. How would you rate your department's performance for the following? (1=Poor; 2=Fair; 3=Good; 4=Very Good; = cellent) 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very Good 5 Excellent Making it easy for clients/patients to O Q access all of the services they need Educating clients/patients about all 0 O 0 0 0 of the services 1 programs available Providing coordinated care for the family rather than case O. 0 O 0 0, management for individuals Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-85 4. Please rate the following statements (1=Strongly DISAGREE; 7=Strongly AGREE) 1 Strongly 7 Strongly DISAGREE 2 3 4 5 6 AGREE I would feel comfortable providing information to patients 1 clients about p 01 0,. Q p` 0.. 0 the programs available at DSS. I would feel comfortable providing information to patients /clients about the personal care O. 0' 0 p 01 0 programs and clinics available at the Health Department. 5. In your opinion, what are some of the biggest challenges you face to providing coordinated and comprehensive services to the families we serve? t 6. What training, tools, processes, or policies, etc. would need to be in place to make it easier for you to provide more coordinated and comprehensive services to the family we serve? 7. Is there anything else that you would like to tell us 1 share with us? I f *8. Which department do you work for? 0 Department of Social Services 0 Health Department hone Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-86 Appendix F Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-87 VS c f/°9 EL1 tz tw C � Q? a! W 4-� � � C ro 7y i ro ¢' u*ry to y C 0 t +tea O o O . E?A t4 Za O V ar R a C i cu W U ro „� Ql -0 c — v v °_ H °3 �° u u cu z LA c as w m +. ®1 G ar Qj i to J2 Q1 w M m (U C 2 C 'i iS� G s. C °C i �' O QJ C 0 C C ` � L a; u, C O QJ Qg E t ro a O L s O u ro ca = = 0- C v E v ro 0 LZU Nn C ro .c d? CL c 0 v 0 0 ro u ro en -0 ro m u -0 LL u =a c7 3 v '' ro C ° -� M v 0 v, u ro , ro y n4 C v u v — +� n xs > q ® ro 3 v O u CL o �' uo ro u ro ro ® v . a a.. C.s C aJ C7 o r .a .� C u °' > u e u ? ar v a, c q " 0 o +� c a c v v 0 v ro ,L, ® eo s n a U �w M ro w v M '0 _u v' v ro aA . ro ai v 4r ''� ® C CUB .Qj ' ro O tio 0 v a- = a) ro {. as v �s rvn c L 2 LA CL CL 2 0 c �. 0 nr � as v +� v w .c0 G C F- d O rJ 0_ 0 0 +r rva rr ra o tip a, as u ° v .0 Q V Ln 0 CA J e d �� w __j d is d � � J J � d o E co = s c m 40 ` c as v d v c Z 0 0 C7 zia m LA L. 0 ®, = C � ctii +ro+ 0 ' u O W " o ro o O v a ao u u v 4- d +� �. 0 as u - .- — - v ` m 0 .® E CL °°? +r i Qa ro 0 °z7 rU v +v, aJ O ho 0 90 0 -0 a =4- 'rn L v, a 4- to a GJ v O M 0 w m C3 v C C C -0 w' C 0 v a on �- u [� °°• 03 v ,., aj C v, �'' 0 ua5 ty LM QJ C � 3 0 a 0 'u C. > a1 C +a t= O 0 3 o ro ro u -0 ,dm _ ,,, ro 0 w c r u O ' a dj 41 p � �� `-� �} 0 4 >. as �s 7. d L rn 0 c u ai 0 � E m ar 0 C ro ED m cu® is �, C 0 C > M a� v v, ro c v m L) QF 6i O C O 0 as 0 rn C3 t. �! 0 CI7 aTa a) O — aQ v vs wa o in m � Q- a� ea d cn ca i3 — o 3 w �- as v -- --- . .0 ®. u LU G M — 4a G CC 0 c 06 O Vf L6 u — LU [7 09/03/2013 14-2-88 a 2s a1 x ap u 1 4- u +, c 4 n °D a c v F s_ CU W *' a 04 u .1 as ,v `-' a ,y " s no aEi O to E V � fO ` 5, c_ 0 c a� c M H o z c "o ro a "' "� v -0 to ,F W a' c„ W w `o .W c a o r LL CU o C � M a 0-0 oc u 'Q a u ey c eo c c w v `� a�i 41 r ,L- cn N >-^ -�, ar ® — to a. U '� a '5 Al zq L v, V m N cn _ °}�. C u C L .S� C U �=' p 1 VV1 U a) tkO W O -6 W (A ® W 0 vy �-. _ ` .d a N _ C .0 ru E M 0 o m — `0 a -O c a u o � as S a o s r- 0 tv tw LA o o ,= `® - M W W W as Ln o ro ' ra �a c Q r bU ❑ CL m� ra ' CL � w m E _ ro C: a tin '-r-, 'PS a+ O f+ aJ L �] vi rn a1 U ti^ " - E W -4 E as ® U O_. Q CO � O E a ° = 3 o " °' v � 4' M U O ca as 0 �' ° c fir ' n 4� CU L �. a s E Cl d aj O 41 p N,. cn Ck S'6 ut "C an N bbA ,sfn w— rt5 41 3 `L 5- O G V, ? cZ = •j w t G 2 C C `^ d �u ,� as nn as > "' '� a u E ° .v p E - m N ar 2 _ _ '� +� Z V 0 18 a sr S Ul G vy i �J y' m n u u m C r G 97 a_ -0 C2 cu m U 41 QX1 C � C a d7 �� 01 u s yr y u r uy CU C] m w E E U G d .u s3 c3 + ®7 OJ w Q1 Z3 0 vi u-- T3 O (� sot m ..0 tB C C�7 ca G L-.Y 7!} "� r:.,`: 4J 4- ® ctS US vt C ® ° .D O ^i., — — 2 O L- c 7 3 p G; n O O +. =U 1 a� ® v Ca4 Q7 V 3 ry t6 v +� eO L Q c.i ++ 40 W: its ?: :.�C : "`i '.�.., u � °L' m C � 13 N Cb ql p 7 O E1.) p Qd tJ t7 vy a ® C1 w- ❑ u '� d S E w to =C) m m m ffi 2 d V ❑ ;,,N C ® v rn O Q) �.Qax�of Gs�mmis R �eing _ m ...... .... 09/03/2013 14-2-89 CU to to W .2 E 0 0 r Co (U CL ci M 0 0 > u -0 'r- .— M "5 M 0 ai 0 0 5- CL .0 .0 r 0 E >. 2 w M CL 0 M -6 = w 0 UXJEEUUO Al w tw u -0 ao 0 w -0 as w U M 0 c as w GJ bo �c 0 c UO 41 .0 U lz 4� r- tn aj C 0 a 41 Qj -4-- 0 Q) E M 41 L- 0 0 -0 — a .2 u I M 0 -6 W j E L- 0 M r- cu 0 " -a W" E 4- 0 -a 0 @ (U 0 U cu -0 Lp CL 0 aj Oj * v o r- u = Da 0 CL do 2- >- 0- M — W 0 (3) .>— 4- .�! 4- 0 4� 41 u ai A ?: u 4, 0 0 -j .c 'S 0 Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-90 > 0 u t Q— u CU ij a 0 m u LO CL 0 41 W di n 0) o U) ul r- -0 .- m CL u cc 0 0 u 7E t2o M CY _ 0 " (L) u a - m m V LA CL m > U) 0 0 41 0 0• 41 -0 cc aj 4- m cu 4� r_ a C o 0 a) o 0 0) 0 u LU r_ u A2 LU Qj -a CL -a aj CL 0 ai CU 0 L. M co z ou Wm in 3: u m acm, Ou m Lw. a. m u 0 4 fA t 0 CL Qj 0 E > 25 42 W:$ 2 0 -a > >- = 0 cU CL to m c 0 = a k 12 bo w 41 W M ai 61 r- ca 0 E m CU > c r m wu 0. WC oLn mmw 0 2 0 41 Lm E E w 2 w . M > U CL 4� CU W 0 Ul r E X CD W� u cu .> aj M L- — • w - .2t .2 LU x w 0 0_ m (U c a L- E < v lu > E V) Co CA CL MU COL -a o tn LA 0 0 • f- (D jj = — +rt t — C: -a o (D 0 0 - r- Z o 0 0 0 4- to 4� M, U aj in •c m 4f C W tF a �: m ai M u lu 0 41 a) > 41 Cr 41 M E- 0 0 C6 u = U) < 0 12 CL r- E 05 E :5 m U o CL CL CL it W E 0 CL M M E u 0 w R 0 CL = c E u V 0 2 C: CL 0 8 m co U Ln -C 0 E 4 m CL E E v u CL M U U r.L U u '0 0 0 CL W = a) > 0 < u In 0 LA -0 CL u 2 3: co co -0 > 0 0 00 m ca CL co m 0 w W 0 2 Ae co E 0 (D �j u 0 VA vw W U E > S r wl C: o c CL j CL a W w L- 0 z M 0 a 0 c E u 4� CL W r 0 u CL 0 0 (D x u `6- 0 43 m r-" w 0 w a) c U M13 0. 0 0 U.; > ca M a, +j &,I - %.. .0 0 u u cu ad ca j= iv CL M 0 U > W = +, r W M 0 cu W M w E 4� E M M L- CL b' u 0 IMJ w m (D L- 8 L. GJ u m >1 w 0 2 W r > M - w u (D 0 m 4� U U Lj 0 4= Ln M U M CL W 0 m u co M (U 13 10 = -@ m M. 0 ds E m o u o 0 0 C-A r m CA uj E o E o ui CA a in Ql 0 0 0 z 0 w to co UA V W ca CL IV R 0 u c CL x 0 & LA CL ui LF) LU VA issinnem mejebiju 09/03/2013 14-2-91 4A rA r 4� L- V eo = u 0 u E 4 a m CL c- CL C U- to CL u -0 W (A U E cuo U E I W W 0 w cu 0 C a = " 0 0 m -0 0 0 r 41 n CL ca U 0 W IA , ba CL 4- o = 2 w a 00 u s Ln E 0 3: CL U OL a) > in = m 0 'n 0 r- -0 mo 1 '0 'D C: E 4.1 0 0 0 p a m u E u Lu m A X Ln 0 a) E = ao r, C u m 2� 0 E W m 0% qA bo W Ln E > 0 41 0 u 0 Cm mLa cr- C -0 w 4� W w &A M y E 5 cL E 0) :3 W 41 M u Un W c 0 0 m .— :�, ca .0 M bo V u w E rA W m 'e o 4� S IA U tm E a, 4- Ln E 0 5; m LRI 41 m E =4� m E L- U) u 0 bc m r- a w W 0 LL 0 t W M > ca u 2 E 0 E -0 0 CL W M u 41 m 0 E W CL 0 to u E .0 Ul n E w 0 U U r 0 = m u " b., Z; M U W c E 0 m OA a 41 40 U u CL U U M :3 , -0 L di o 2: 10) E u 0 W w 0 co 0 0 0 W 0 m E 'mj LA a. cL RMD Ou in m u .M c Im 0 E V E 0 0 0 09/03/2013 14-2-92 in z) IV 0 (3 22 tA 0 0 Z V F 4 fA r 6L E, �4 C) ru 4' A L3 aj -3 > j 41 7: ul A,-, L1 U 4 ot Eel ....... ... ru r-W Qqj U wg c aj OL, C. + tz a a 'r, 7) A 5, CK, C U u 0 a. 41 zJ u ED Z3 cL kA z 0 VW U,,4 0 + in C4 4� kA ou I u > ZI 0 Oc 'a Z4 v F �S 4 do 4-1 0 0 e,� Ej �g_, - L: ea RE U) vs z OJ f zi 0 <c A C X2 Q h,) tj aj 4 LI ea L) EL �o Au IND PA ov C cz :--n > oj kE2 1-2 !Tt u - w a 0 71 cn III Cr, L- f- U-1 ;I A A ,Tj !�O :P O `4 A 6 31 `Board of Commissioner's Meeting 09/03/2013 14-2-93 4 m g,.- `� .».. '� � u a � d •° �.a r.� sty �i �. �'� F �...� `_"" :4 : a a a* al +«, x, °R 4° ✓ _ * w. q,9 $e .gin .aa 6 b t S` { v, "' ci ru a tT ; L N a _ cm t7 a°5 �p a".• _. a a Cam+ ° '_ ,m 4 �^ C a= a t mC ra .a �• d? a r4 4D ' of 7 { a �Y, Cry av'i �„ g Cl t. .� ----.. .......g._:.�..., m..m...:�....,r. �-........-..s:� ..4.,..:..�. :�: ....,..�. ,. _:.�._, .. _..,. ..-... r. ....mow., _.,..,,r . � , s 3 � tZ o .'j R„„.. �> s•w .a �3�% r .` a t4C,a �ffi ti Via,a q� C r ...... Board of Gofrrrrrssionefs,Meeting- ___ _ . .a .. ._ _k ......... , 09/03/2013 14-2-94 --—------.......—-——------------- 7yk 0 0 (U > C) Ln L= 0 .,n Kk *T' Z Ln a) r m Q Aj LA cj to 4," 0 Or, sa 4a ;tf E en b-0 tg tj Lu Z. As, U ra W 41 V3 i V '74 0 0 ry di tw ul KA C -C r- ` ''7 5 = .9 LV r- CL e2 a -Tl ro c- J CL . I cx t3 CZ 0 --0 0 tj Ln M 41 IV h. 7 kl'3 ri a c "0 tA 0 a ej M.,• 4� to fkj 'j 41 -. %� 'Z 'f2 L 0 r- >� ai 'r< a u w aj 6 Q- (v :5 *j 0- = M .a a. '4 •Ln 1 as 0 "l? aj f.J Q. a in cf u 0 a CL E to Gi 41 m V ru 0 V, iZl' CD c > iJ is 0 0 0 r�j > rs vi 0 1 — J-- 0) bo m W W tA K) wi Ln > ci p ;X ra Q, C LZ 9 U 'Z' to PC m m 9= ED 9z < ct; G tn ul FM or ria UP, C tA CL Board of tommissioners Meeting ............. 09/03/2013 14-2-95 o z k e P tat _ '• dd 0s.' ®! i® �_, 1°. yn �". s &°, f '� t'.t r •.m3 .-1`° °' �4. J I V 5.. w `�° yr::. t r°. S.3 ll1 .: v L'e3 '4. rte: _ 'd .a4 ,:j '° ° �'e CS !'-. foe ! •: �® i` P 0 `d p4 1 s®tLa 41 ru- `fdj �t ":s a P . . r �«,• 3-° .. ;i -.., - _ 3 i® CU f,� ti® ;°+ w .• 3 4.E. SS Ln L CJ. i' r eR.' Gf3 [k,% • (° V ® °"a: sue. p .S§ &`X9 4J M Gam" (0 6..b °t« CP 3 �s `m .w ev°` v,: :F ,t'Z v a-e 41 .gam 4 '� . C ro 41 r !i� cam, a a; n6 t e �...: h;,t 4. ,F., , • w) U t tA tr (^ !�ej- Z; sa — , s— _ y,� et} r.` 2 ab a � °� ®fit _ t6 bo a to ru d� F' s e:a' s.,. % � • � 'fib ss � "� y i 6"a 7ltk r t:7 w ws tai wa ars M vti t � a� aN qj Qj LA CL m la 0 LO tu � a 6 q I i a c a f 09/03/2013 14-2-96 CA E r-o 7: Zj r- v En as Al kn t3 l C3 CU 41 r.4 41 (A < r m Ll 4-P E 3E tr CL) r J I° S) S. fli -cs 41 C.1 EL .5 ro, .......... ......... U .i®' LA 0 —c E p Z 41 5 IAI CL 41 m 0 N CL tw 6 4� Y') ru Iz !m. "!j — .11 J-- M cn 40 0 xz C .— -3 0 'at lu cu ffi .Cj Z re A Cl IA cu Oj to ca NI Tj 0 CL o 0- CU _U 41 VI rn �u 0 , — L. ru kj s Zi 4j Ov 0 -6 an CL fl: Board of CAmissioneril Meeting ..............09-TOa/20T3-- 14-2-97 NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION MEETING DATE: September 3, 2013 REGULAR ITEM. 15 DEPARTMENT: PRESENTER(S): Chris Coudriet, County Manager CONTACT(S): Cam Griffin,Budget Director SUBJECT: Consideration of October Work Session on the FY14-15 Budget BRIEF SUMMARY: In order to take a more strategic approach to the FY14-15 Budget I would like to establish a date for an October Work Session on the FY14-15 Budget. Attached is a possible agenda for your review. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Strong Financial Performance • Deliver value for taxpayer money RECOMMENDED MOTION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Establish a full day on October 17, 2013 for the Budget Work Session. ATTACHMENTS: Possible Agenda COUNTY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: (only Manager) Establish a full day on October 17, 2013 for the Budget Work Session. COMMISSIONERS'ACTIONS: The Board will correspond via email to establish a date,possibly October 25 or November 6. Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 15-0 Possible Agenda Economic Development FY13-14 FY14-15 Education Cape Fear Community College NHC Schools Funding Formula Supplemental Tax School Bond School Security FY12-13 Accomplishments FY14-15 County Contribution For Each Function and Fund (General Government, Human Services, Public Safety, Education, Cultural and Recreational, Environmental Management, Fire Service District) Major Accomplishments Major Plans Challenges and Funding needs Outside Agencies CIP/Infrastructure Needs Strategy Map Short Update on Budget Challenges-Increased detail will be available in January Board of Commissioners Meeting 09/03/2013 15- 1 - 1