|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
REVISED Item No. 2a
added. Closed Session Item No. 7--G.S.
§ 143-318.11(a)(4) deleted. THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA Monday, August 5,
2002 9:00 A.M.
Worksession AGENDA 1. Citizen Comment?Mr. Jack Steer Mr. Jack Steer has
requested time on the agenda to make comments to the Commissioners about the
American Tobacco project. 2. Waiver of Bidding Procedures for Previously Bid Contracts and Approval to
Purchase Vehicles for Sheriff?s Office In October 2001,
University Ford successfully completed a public, formal bid process required by
N.C.G.S. §143-129. University Ford was
awarded the contract to furnish vehicles to the County and is now willing to
furnish the same type of vehicles at the same prices, terms, and conditions as
those provided under the previous contract in FY 2001-02. Pursuant to
North Carolina General Statute §143-129(g), the governing board may waive the
formal bidding procedures for the purchase of equipment, such as vehicles,
if: (1) the vendor has successfully
completed a formal bidding process in the past 12 months resulting in a
contract to furnish equipment; and (2) is now willing to furnish the same
equipment at the same price or more favorable price, terms, and conditions as
those provided under the previous contract. The statute
also requires that a Notice of Waiver of Bidding Procedures be advertised for
10 days prior to the Board waiving the procedures under §143-129(g), which
requirement has been satisfied. The
purchase of vehicles with University Ford qualifies under this statute, and
therefore allows the County to enter into a contract and proceed with the
purchase of vehicles with University Ford without going out for a formal
bid. If approved, the County would
realize savings of at least $31,500.00.
The contract for the purchase of vehicles will be for 35 vehicles in the
amount of $747,148.50, or $21,347.10 per vehicle. The funding
for this purchase was appropriated in the Equipment Leasing Fund. The County?s
required M/WBE participation for the purchase of vehicles is normally 6.27
percent with African Americans. No
minority vendors in this area can provide new vehicles that meet the Sheriff
Department?s needs: therefore, we normally receive a waiver for M/WBE
participation in purchases of this nature. Resource
Person(s): Capt. R. D. Buchanan, Sheriff?s Office, and George Quick,
Finance Director County
Manager's Recommendation: Suspend the rules, waive the bid
procedures for previously bid contracts under N.C.G.S.§143-129(g), and
authorize the purchase of vehicles from University Ford in the amount of
$747,148.50. 2a. Discussion
of Proposal for County Participation in the American Tobacco Project Negotiators for
Durham County, the City of Durham, and the Capitol Broadcasting Corporation
(CBC) have reached an agreement in principle on redeveloping the former
American Tobacco facilities located in downtown Durham. The site represents a prime component of the
County and City?s efforts to revitalize downtown by linking the area between
the Durham Freeway and the railroad right of way to the central business
district. When complete, the overall
project should represent a taxable investment by CBC of over $127 million,
603,200 square feet of office space, 179,000 square feet of retail stores and
restaurants, and 174,400 square feet of hotel and/or residential space. The development is estimated to bring 3,600
jobs into downtown Durham and will complement other future developments such as
the new County Courthouse, the Performing Arts Center, and the Multi-Modal
Transportation Center. The County?s
$19.5 million contribution to the project will be used to help construct public
parking garages. Resource Person(s): Mike Ruffin,
County Manager; Chuck Kitchen, County Attorney; Carolyn Titus, Deputy County
Manager; George Quick, Finance Director; Pam Meyer, Budget and Management
Services Director; and County Manager's
Recommendation: The Manager recommends that the Board suspend its rules, approve the
proposal in principle, and authorize staff to prepare the Business Deal Points
and Development Agreement(s) in accordance therewith. 3. Triangle Transit Authority?Presentation on the Financial Report Mr. Don Carnell,
Interim General Manager, Triangle Transit Authority, will present the Triangle
Transit Authority?s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. 4. Mental Health Reform?Governance The County Attorney will make a
presentation regarding the October 1, 2002 deadline for notifying the State as
to the governance model to be used for the provision of Mental Health services
in Durham County. The Board of
Commissioners will have the option of determining whether to continue with an
Area Authority or creating a County Program to deliver services. The County Attorney will explain the
differences among the various models; including liability and personnel. Resource Person(s): Chuck
Kitchen, County Attorney County Manager's Recommendation:
Receive the information presented by the County Attorney and give direction to
staff. 5. Benefits Renewal The Human
Resources Department has put out its entire benefits package for bid. Based on responses to the RFP and input from
the Benefits Committee, the Human Resources Department would like to make recommendations
on health insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, short-term and long-term
disability insurance, ancillary coverages and to present proposals for new
out-of-pocket benefits, i.e. long-term care insurance and a prepaid legal plan. Resource
Person(s): Jackye Knight, Human Resources Director, and Debbi
Davidson, Benefits Manager County
Manager's Recommendation: Provide input and directions to
Human Resources staff in preparation of formal award of contracts to be placed
on a future consent agenda. 6. Report
from County Attorney on Juvenile Court Appeals The County Attorney
will report on three appeals which his office has taken from payment orders
entered in District Court. Two of the
cases, In
re Braithwaite and In re Gurley, are pending cases in the
Supreme Court; petitions for Writs of Certiorari have been filed in both
cases. Since these cases are pending,
only the procedural history will be discussed.
The merits of the cases may be discussed in closed session. The Court of Appeals
did not decide, in either case, whether the District Court properly ordered the
County to pay for the care of these two juveniles. Instead, the Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to
decide the case and the only review possible is by the Supreme Court. Following these opinions stating that the
only review is by the Supreme Court, the County petitioned the Supreme Court to
review the propriety of the orders in these two cases. In general, the
cost to the County to petition the Supreme Court (and normally to have a case
reviewed by the Court of Appeals) is less than $1,000. People have made statements that the County
is spending far more than $1000; however, they fail to recognize that the
attorneys in the County Attorney?s office are not paid the same rate as private
attorneys. The primary issue
in any appeal is whether the trial judge committed reversible error. In reviewing cases involving payment orders
in juvenile cases, the issue is not normally whether the juvenile needs
treatment but whether State or County funds are used to make the payment. Or, in the appropriate case, the parents may
be required to make the payments. These
appeals are not personal attacks on the judge involved but instead question the
propriety of the ruling. The third
case, which was appealed with the above two cases, In re Mercer, is instructive
in this regard. A copy of the Petition
for a Writ of Supersedeas, which was filed in the Court of Appeals, illustrates
the facts of the case. In this case, the
statutory provisions were not followed by which the County could be ordered to
pay for the juvenile?s treatment.
However, the trial court ordered the County to pay for treatment which
was not appropriate under Medicaid regulations. The County was sent a bill in the amount of $14,493.72 for this
treatment. Subsequently, the State
arranged payment of the costs in the amount of $8,125.00. The facility accepted this amount as payment
in full. In the vast majority of juvenile cases,
State monies have been available to pay treatment costs. When the proper procedure is followed, the
juvenile may get the appropriate treatment, and the County is not required to
spend the money of its taxpayers for this treatment. Resource Person(s): Chuck
Kitchen, County Attorney County
Manager's Recommendation: Receive the report of the County
Attorney. 7. Closed Session The Board of Commissioners is requested
to adjourn to closed session to consult with an attorney concerning In Re
Braithwaite, COA01-832, and In Re Gurley, COA01-833 and to consider
the conditions of appointment of a public officer pursuant to G.S. §
143-318.11(a)(3) & (6). 8. Settlement of 2001 Property Taxes As required
by N.C.G.S. 105-373, the Tax Administrator is herewith submitting the
settlement report of 2001 property taxes. N.C.G.S.
105-373(h) further authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to relieve the
Tax Collector of the charges of taxes on classified motor vehicles that are one
year or more past due. Additionally,
the General Statutes bar use of any remedies for collection enforcement that is
not instituted within ten years of said taxes becoming due. The Tax
Administrator requests authorization to relieve charges of taxes that are
beyond the statute of limitation of ten years and those vehicles that are more
than two years past due. This request
is consistent with last year?s settlement, which was authorized by the Board. Resource
Person(s): W. Steven Crysel, Tax Administrator County
Manager's Recommendation: Suspend the rules and receive and
approve the 2001 Property Tax Settlement Report. Charge the Interim Tax Collector with 2002 Property Taxes. Authorize the relieving of taxes that are
more than ten years past due and motor vehicles taxes that are more than two
years past due. |
|
