HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 16 2013 Regular MinutesIREDELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MINUTES
APRIL 16, 2013
The Iredell County Board of Commissioners met on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, at 7:00
PM, in the Iredell County Government Center (Commissioners' Meeting Room), 200 South
Center Street, Statesville, NC.
Board Members Present
Chairman Steve Johnson
Vice Chairman Marvin Norman
David Boone
Renee Griffith
Ken Robertson
Staff present: County Manager Ron Smith, Deputy County Manager Tracy Jackson,
County Attorney Bill Pope, Finance Director Susan Blumenstein, Solid Waste Director David
Lambert, and Clerk to the Board Jean Moore.
CALL TO ORDER by Chairman Johnson
INVOCATION by Chairman Johnson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AGENDA: MOTIO by Commissioner Griffith to
approve the agenda with the following adjustments.
Additions: • Statesville Planner Phil Collins will Speak under Appointments Before the Board
in regards to a request for financial assistance in the acquisition of property located
near the Statesville Regional Airport
• Closed Session for Economic Development - G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (4)
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
APPOINTMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD
Mr. David Swann, the Partners Behavioral Health Management Chief Clinical
Officer, Provides an Update about State Mandated Changes to the Composition of the
Partners' Board of Directors and Requests Adoption of a Resolution in Support of the
Revisions: Mr. Swann said last year the legislature changed the board of directors' requirements
for local management entities. He summarized the following information in regards to the new
requirements and requested adoption of a resolution in support of the new governance structure.
Changes Mandated for the Composition of the Board of Directors
• North Carolina General Statute 122c-118.1 outlines the requirements for the board of directors
for a Local Management Entity (Partners Behavioral Health Management).
• The merger agreement executed by the eight Boards of County Commissioners which constitute
Partners BHM and the by-laws which have governed the board of directors since merger have been
in compliance with 122c118.1.
• NC Session Law 2012-151 (Senate Bill 191) ratified July 12, 2012, significantly modified the
requirements for the structure of LME boards and requires full compliance by 2013.
• The Partners BHM Board of Directors has studied this issue in depth and has made the necessary
modifications to its by-laws to comply with the new legislation.
• Highlights of the new requirements are:
o The board may have between 1 1 and 21 voting members. Partners BHM Board of
Directors currently has 26 members.
o There are 13 required categories of individuals that must be represented on the LME
board. Eleven of the 13 are voting members and the other 2 (the president of the local
Provider Council and an administrator of a hospital providing mental health,
developmental disabilities and substance abuse services) are non-voting members.
o Of the 1 1 mandated categories to be represented by voting members, one is directly
appointed by the Secretary of the NC Department of Health and Human Services.
o The board must have at least one member who is a county commissioner.
o No one person can be counted as filling more than two of the mandated categories even
if they meet the requirements of additional classifications.
• The Partners BHM Board of Directors voted to have the maximum board members permitted
under the new legislation, and this is 21.
• The revised by-laws maintained the distribution philosophy agreed to by the eight -member
counties during the merger and formation of Partners BHM. The 21 members will be distributed
among the eight member counties proportionate to the population of the individual county.
• Eight of the 21 members are designated as a county commissioner or designee from each county.
Since the revised statute only requires one commissioner to be on the board, it allows for counties
to have flexibility on using these designated seats for a commissioner member or to appoint an at -
large individual.
• Due to the strict requirements to meet the statutory requirements of the 11 categories described
above, a standing nominating committee will function for the Partners BHM Board of Directors
and will need to work collaboratively with the clerks to the commission to balance the geographic
distribution and the mandated representation.
MOTIO by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the following resolution in support of
the revisions to the composition of the Partners Behavioral Health Management's Board of
Directors.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Resolution
In Support of Revisions to the Composition of the
Partners Behavioral Health Management Board of Directors
WHEREAS, Partners Behavioral Health Management ("Partners BHM") was established by joint
agreement between the commissioners of Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Surry and
Yadkin counties on July 1, 2012, by merging the former Mental Health Partners, Crossroads Behavioral
Healthcare, and Pathways LME Area Authorities; and
WHEREAS, the board of directors for Partners BHM was established at the time of the merger to
be a 26 -member board distributed proportionately according to the population of each individual county
as a percentage of the combined merged population; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina Session Law 2012-151 (Senate Bill 191) codified as NC General
Statute § 122C-118.1 enacted new requirements for Area Authority boards in both size and composition of
members and requires Area Authorities to be in full compliance with the new requirements no later than
October 1.2013: and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors for Partners BHM has thoroughly discussed and explored
various options to come into compliance with the statute and to maintain fidelity to the will of the
commissioners expressed at the time of the merger; and
WHEREAS, Partners BHM's Board of Directors has modified its by-laws to maintain an
equitable distribution of members among the eight counties that comprise the organization; and
WHEREAS, Partners BHM requests that the modifications to the governance structure be
supported by the respective Boards of County Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Iredell County Board of Commissioners
supports and approves the modifications made to the governance structure of Partners BHM, that is in
compliance with NC General Statute §122C-118.1, and will work collaboratively with the Partners BHM
Board of Directors to appoint the members with the requisite backgrounds and qualifications to maintain
compliance with the State statutes.
Ms. Amy Miller Addresses the Board in Regards to a Request for the County to
Establish an Animal Control Board Composed of Members from the Community: Miller,
the owner of four pit bull dogs, said previously she was told by representatives of the Animal
Control Department that pit bull type dogs could not be adopted, for any purpose, other than to
select rescue groups. She said out of concern about this practice, research began, and this led to
2
the discovery of even more troubling practices. Miller said a major problem, in reference to the
pit bull policy, was that she had been told it adhered to a county ordinance, but no one had a
written copy. She said later, it was determined this information was incorrect, as the policy had
actually been created by the Animal Control Director, and not through a vote of the
commissioners. Miller said it was understood that not every policy needed to be voted on, but the
policies should at least be written down. She said, otherwise, the policies couldn't be implemented
fairly and consistently. Miller provided a PowerPoint presentation, and the points she made
pertaining to this request are as follows:
Background
• Pit bull type dog adoption policy was director mandated, but it was attributed to a county_
ordinance. No written policy ever existed, no guidelines for what a pit bull type dog is.
• No written temperament testing protocol.
• Respectable 501(c) (3) organizations will not work with Iredell County_ at this time.
• Animal cruelty and neglect cases are not investigated adequately.
• Written minutes and records of the Animal Control Grievance Board do not exist.
Why are these issues problematic?
• Policies that are enforced should be recorded and followed. Without a written guideline
there is little chance there will be continuity and consistentv_ .
• No written temperament testing protocol.
- Animal Advocate Point of View
- Community Safety
- Legally
• Rescue groups
- Save more animals
- Saves the county money; revenue for animal control
• Currently, it is the policy of Iredell County that animal cruelty/neglect cases are only
documented and investigated when the animal is taken into the care of ICAS.
• King's case
• Often animal owners are given the option of surrendering their animals to avoid investigation.
• Why is it important to document and investigate?
- We don't know what the problems are unless there is documentation.
- We can verify that a person has a history of animal abuse.
- Fines are a source of revenue for the county.
• No written accounting of Animal Grievance Board
- These meetings affect the lives of our community members.
- Without written documentation there is no easy or simple wav to prove the appeals are
handled fairly.
- The appeals process is the wav in which we have established the right to due process for
dog owners.
- With no written records the owners of the dangerous and vicious dogs are not traceable.
- Pattern of behavior is important to determine if illegal behavior is occurring and to
protect the community.
- This is also a perception issue.
The most important issue.-
-
ssue:• The loss of trust and faith in Iredell County_ Animal Services and Control to fairly_ and
faithfully serve our community.
- This is not just a staffing issue.
- It is an operation issue. It is also a perception issue.
• To help restore that trust the county needs to give the community a way to be heard, to see
the positive things that ICAS has been doing, to see the positive changes and to become
involved with the process.
What should it do?
• No policy making ability
• Provide advice and information to the Animal Sery ices Director
• Coordinate with the Animal Services Director to make recommendations to the Board of
Commissioners for the betterment of the county's animal services and control program.
• In conjunction with the Animal Services Director and the county, provide a program of
public education, information, and outreach concerning responsible pet ownership, animal
cruelty, and the comity's animal control policies.
3
• Allow community members to voice their concerns about matters related to Animal Services
and Control and pass those concerns on to the appropriate person within county management.
Requirements to Serve on the Board:
• Seven individuals
- Veterinarian, current or retired, or a professional who is accredited/certified in animal
behavior, behavior modification or training.
- Humane Society or reputable 501(c) (3) Rescue Representative whose organization is
involved in the care and protection of animals.
- One community member who has experience in either operating a business, leading a
civic organization, or a legal profession background.
- 7`wo at large members who are experienced with animals
Whey work:
• Community based
• Passionate, dedicated individuals who deal with just the policies and issues related to Animal
Services.
• Can look at all sides of an issue, investigate cost, possible savings to the taxpayers, and how
policies would benefit animal welfare and keep the community safe.
Where they have worked:
Cabarrus, Chowan, Cumberland, Dare, Durham, Franklin, 6orsvth, Gaston, Moore, Onslow,
Orange, Person, Penner, Stokes, Vance, Warren, Wake & \Vilkes Count\, along with I lickorv,
NC, Charlotte, NC, Burlington, NC, Dunn, NC, and Washington, NC.
Chairman Johnson thanked Ms. Miller for the presentation. He suggested that Miller
provide a few weeks for the county to consider the request, and during this time, he would consult
with Interim Animal Services & Control Director Tracy Jackson. Johnson extended an invitation
for Ms. Miller to visit him in a couple of weeks to further discuss the matter.
REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF STATESVILLE FOR FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE IN A PROPERTY ACQUISITION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
STATESVILLE REGIONAL AIRPORT: Mr. Collins provided the following letter that details
this request.
TO: Iredell County Commissioners
FROM: Phillip Collins, AICP - Senior Planner, City of Statesville
DATE: April 16, 2013
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On March 18, 2013, the Statesville City Council voted to approve a purchase price of $200,000 for property at the
Statesville Regional Airport contingent upon concurrence from the NCDOT - Division of Aviation (DOA). The
proposed purchase price includes the appraised value ($113,500) and the cost of replacement housing ($86,500)
for the property owner. Also, the property owner is typically allowed $17,591 for moving expense. City of
Statesville staff has since received notice from the DOA that they do not concur with the full amount agreed upon
by the property owner. Essentially, they will not provide reimbursement for the replacement housing cost as
presented. According to the reply I received from the DOA, their policies regarding land acquisitions over the
appraised value have been under scrutiny recently, and they cannot concur with the purchase price being
approximately 57% over the appraised value. Typically, the DOA allows airports to purchase land at a cost of
approximately 25% greater than the appraised value. 125% of the appraised value represents the appraised value
plus the estimated cost of condemnation. The DOA pointed out that the City has two options; 1 — condemn the
property or 2 — purchase the property for the appraised value and the difference ($86,500) is covered by the
airport. The current grant that this acquisition process has been funded by will expire on June 30th of this year.
Therefore, time is of the essence and condemnation may not be the preferred direction, if the City wishes to be
reimbursed.
Collins said a south parallel taxiway would allow for aircraft navigating from the corporate
taxiway area to the eastern end of the runway without crossing the active runway, and this would greatly
increase safety. Collins said, too, a component of the project would be the re-routing of the Old Airport
Road. He said the amount needed from the county was $43,250.00, which was one-half of the costs
($86,500) for the replacement housing.
Chairman Johnson said it was understood the cost might actually be lower.
Collins said this was correct.
4
Chairman Johnson asked the finance director to review the county's airport fund balance.
Finance Director Blumenstein said $24,800 remained in the airport fund, and this money could
be used for the request. She said the remainder ($18,450) could be taken from contingency.
Commissioner Boone asked the contingency balance.
Blumenstein said there was $33,000 in regular contingency, and $150,000 existed in the fuel
contingency fund. She recommended for the $18,450 to be taken from the fuel contingency fund.
OTION by Chairman Johnson to approve the request with $24,800 to be taken from airport
carryover (money remaining from past projects) and for $18,450 to be taken from fuel contingency with
the understanding that the amount needed could be less, dependent upon actions of the State, along with
approval of Budget Amendment #31.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Request from Solid Waste Pertaining to the following: (1) Approval of Budget
Amendment #30 to Transfer Funds Within the Operating Budget to the Phase V Capital
Project Fund (2) Approval of an Amendment to the Capital Project Ordinance and (3) the
Awarding of a Construction Contract to Triangle Grading and Pavement for the Landfill's
Phase V: Solid Waste Director David Lambert said the planning process for the landfill's Phase
V started in 2008, and in 2010, a total cost estimate of $4.2 million was provided. He said a
project ordinance was adopted in 2012, and bids were opened from 14 companies in February
2013. Lambert said the lowest bid exceeded the estimated construction costs, plus there were
unanticipated expenses due to new State regulations. He requested permission to transfer
$300,380 into the Solid Waste Capital Project Fund along with an amendment to the project
ordinance to reflect the new cost of $4,500,380. Lambert said the last component of the request
would be to award the construction contract to Triangle Grading and Pavement in the amount of
$3,725,388.60, and a contract had been developed with assistance from Municipal Engineering
and Attorney Bill Pope's Office.
Commissioner Boone asked if the wells listed on the capital project ordinance were for
monitoring.
Lambert said this was correct, plus there were methane probes. He said in the past the solid
waste department had provided some of this work to cut costs, but now, there were State
requirements for the wells to meet certain standards and to be geologist certified. He said the
State also required the methane probes which had added to the cost.
Chairman Johnson said the Town of Harmony had experienced problems with Triangle
Grading and Construction. He asked Municipal Engineering Representative Wayne Sullivan
how much supervision would occur and if the county would be alerted about any failure of the
company in completing the work as expected and scheduled.
k,
Transfer funds from
Contingency to Statesville Airport for 50%
of the local
match for land
purchase.
BA#31
4/16/2013
Account #
Current
Chane
Amended
105480 5303.00
Contingency - Fuel
150,000
(18,450)
131,550
105475 5742.50
Statesville Airport
451,700
18,450
470,150
Airport Carryover 24,800.00
BA#31
18,450.00
Land Purchase
43,250.00
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Request from Solid Waste Pertaining to the following: (1) Approval of Budget
Amendment #30 to Transfer Funds Within the Operating Budget to the Phase V Capital
Project Fund (2) Approval of an Amendment to the Capital Project Ordinance and (3) the
Awarding of a Construction Contract to Triangle Grading and Pavement for the Landfill's
Phase V: Solid Waste Director David Lambert said the planning process for the landfill's Phase
V started in 2008, and in 2010, a total cost estimate of $4.2 million was provided. He said a
project ordinance was adopted in 2012, and bids were opened from 14 companies in February
2013. Lambert said the lowest bid exceeded the estimated construction costs, plus there were
unanticipated expenses due to new State regulations. He requested permission to transfer
$300,380 into the Solid Waste Capital Project Fund along with an amendment to the project
ordinance to reflect the new cost of $4,500,380. Lambert said the last component of the request
would be to award the construction contract to Triangle Grading and Pavement in the amount of
$3,725,388.60, and a contract had been developed with assistance from Municipal Engineering
and Attorney Bill Pope's Office.
Commissioner Boone asked if the wells listed on the capital project ordinance were for
monitoring.
Lambert said this was correct, plus there were methane probes. He said in the past the solid
waste department had provided some of this work to cut costs, but now, there were State
requirements for the wells to meet certain standards and to be geologist certified. He said the
State also required the methane probes which had added to the cost.
Chairman Johnson said the Town of Harmony had experienced problems with Triangle
Grading and Construction. He asked Municipal Engineering Representative Wayne Sullivan
how much supervision would occur and if the county would be alerted about any failure of the
company in completing the work as expected and scheduled.
k,
Mr. Sullivan said someone would be on-site most of the time. He said a person would only
be there once a week when excavation started, but once construction began, an individual would
supervise the company every day. Sullivan said, "If they fall behind, we'll let you know."
OTION by Vice Chairman Norman to approve Budget Amendment #31 along with the
awarding of the landfill project to Triangle Grading and Pavement, and to amend the Capital
Project Ordinance.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Iredell County, North Carolina
Transfer funds available within the Solid Waste operating budget to the Phase V Capital Project Fund.
BA#30
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Phase V Construction
4/2/2013
Amended Capital Project Ordinance
Account#
Current
Change Amended
525751 7326.00
Retained Earnings - Future Projects
265,659
(265,659)
-
525751 5200.02
Professional Services -Engineering
197,962
(29,721)
168,241
525752 5200.02
Mooresville Professional Services -Engineering
5,000
(5,000)
-
525751 5760.54
Trans to SW Capital Project
1,301,400
300,380
1,601,780
Iredell County, North Carolina
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Phase V Construction
Amended Capital Project Ordinance
Be it Ordained by the Board of County Commissioners of Iredell County, North Carolina:
Section 1. Funds for this Capital Project Fund will be provided by:
Adopted
Amendment
Amended
Transfer In - Phase IV Residual Funds $
478,598
$ -
$ 478,598
Transfer In - Solid Waste Disposal Enterprise Fund - FY12
2,420,000
-
2,420,000
Transfer In - Solid Waste Disposal Enterprise Fund - FY13
1,301,402
300,380
1,601,782
$
4,200,000
$ 300,380
4,500,380
Section 2. The following costs for the design, engineering and construction
of Phase V will be paid by this Fund.
Professional Services- Engineering
Hydro -Study $
175,000
$ -
$ 175,000
Permit to Construct including design
125,000
125,000
Piezometer and Well
-
75,000
75,000
Permit to Operate including construction
oversight and all quality assurance testing
200,000
200,000
Construction of 16 acre lined cell
3,500,000
225,380
3,725,380
Contingency
200,000
200,000
$
4,200,000
$ 300,380
$ 4,500,380
Section 3. This Capital Project Fund shall continue until the project is complete.
Section 4. The County Manager is authorized to transfer funds within expenditure line items
with a report to the Board of Commissioners at its next meeting.
Section S. Payments from this Capital Project Fund shall be authorized by the County Manager
or his designee.
Request from the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) for Approval of the
FY14 Funding Allocation: Jim Mixson, the JCPC Chairman, said the council met on March 19
to consider agency proposals for FY 14 funding. He said the proposals offered services to
juveniles who were at risk of delinquency, or who had been adjudicated undisciplined or
delinquent. Mixson said $281,630 was the estimated funding for the upcoming year, and the
JCPC recommended that $239,808 be allocated for the agencies. He said $41,822 was
unallocated, and the council would request proposals from agencies providing restitution
programs. Mixson said these programs enabled juveniles to provide community service work
hours to earn funds for restitution payments.
The following chart shows the agencies recommended for FYI JCPC funding.
6
Iredell County
NC Dept. of Public Safety - JCPC - County Funding Allocation
Available Fatds: $ $281,630 Local Mitch: $ $105,290 Rate: 30%
8
Rtagrent �lnvsdcr i DT3DR
���... , N nc,;:. �. • , , � � � rlmdm
'-' �OGAL FUIJDING" OTnER
:OTRElt
'+ILads a Total'--
..
,Conniy Ot6a;T,acal Lgt'elJn=
33i Gash ::� c t �pehi , � z.Ainib:'.
9faie!
` F�'edesal"'
t
Appropriate Placement Options, Inc. $52,000
$10,098 537,000
$99,098
1
PiedmunlMedialiou Center, Inc $45,000
$20101111
$65,000
a
DIakunos, Inc. $13,000
$3,900 _ _
$16,900
+Earl'"-Springsllo-e
For Children SI14,308
$34,292 _
$148,600
5
JCPCAd-tn afintlon $15,500
$
107.49
a
OnalI ..t IFunds $41,822
1,286.63
$41,822
$
-
Mooresville Town
$
5,000.04
TOTALS: 5281,630
$44,390 $60,900 $0 $0
SO $386,920
OTION by Vice Chairman Norman to approve the JCPC funding allocation for FY 14.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Request for Approval of the March 2013 Tax Refunds and Releases: County Manager
Ron Smith said the March 2013 tax refunds and releases had been submitted for approval.
MOTION by Commissioner Boone to approve the tax refunds and releases for the month
of March 2013.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
Releases for the Month of March 2013
Breakdown of
Releases:
County
$
18,143.54
Solid Waste Fees
$
433.50
E. Alex. Co. Fire #1
$
12.76
Shepherd's Fire #2
$
208.05
Mt. Mourne Fire #3
$
95.36
All County Fire #4
$
1,184.92
B&F Fire #5
$
107.49
Statesville City
$
1,286.63
Statesville Downtown
$
-
Mooresville Town
$
5,000.04
Mooresville Downtown
$
7.76
Mooresville School
$
1,483.21
Love Valley
$
57.50
Harmony
$
26.70
Troutman
$
64.02
Davidson
$
-
Refunds for the Month of March 2013
Breakdown of
Refunds:
County
$
4,431.06
Solid Waste Fees
$
226.31
E. Alex. Co. Fire #1
$
-
Shepherd's Fire #2
$
-
Mt. Mourne Fire #3
$
-
All County Fire #4
$
34.01
B&F Fire #5
$
-
Statesville City
$
3,404.79
Statesville Downtown
$
-
Mooresville Town
$
474.67
Mooresville Downtown
$
-
Mooresville School
$
141.66
Love Valley
$
-
%I
Monthly
Total
$28,111.48
Monthly
Total
$8,712.50
Harmony
Troutman
Davidson
Request for Approval of the April 2, 2013 Minutes: MOTIO by Commissioner
Boone to approve the April 2, 2013 minutes as presented.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF VACANCIES OCCURRING ON BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Personnel Advisory Committee (1 announcement)
Recreation Advisory Committee (1 announcement)
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Nursing Home Advisory Committee (1 appointment): Commissioner Robertson
nominated Colleen Caldwell for a reappointment.
MOTION by Chairman Johnson to close the nominations and to reappoint Ms. Caldwell
by acclamation.
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Presentation Regarding "Gainsharing," an Employee Cost Savings Program:
County Manager Ron Smith said this item followed up on a previous request from Commissioner
Boone concerning an employee incentive program to save money.
Deputy County Manager Tracy Jackson said his presentation would provide an overview
of a concept known as "Gainsharing." He said this was an employee driven program designed to
save money for counties and cities. Jackson provided the following PowerPoint presentation
about the program.
GAINSHARING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Ways to Incentivize Using Existing Resources
Gainsharing challenges a local government employee to reduce costs or expand revenues as it relates to
his/her area of work while maintaining, or improving, the quality of the product or services provided.
Results must be achieved by the ideas and energy generated by the employee and not through price or fee
increases. If the employee is successful, he or she shares in a portion of the resulting gain.
Common Characteristics:
Narrow focus
Reduced costs or increased revenues
Manageable concrete targets
Maintains or improves quality of services
Funding Drawn from Savings in Current Budget Year
Approaches to Gainsharing
Departmental Level
-Budgetary Flexibility
-Managed Competition
-Departmental Fund Balance
Employee (Group or Single)
-"Bonus" or "Awards"
Administration & Oversight
Program Elements
-Review Committees
-Regulatory policies, procedures and guidelines
-The award or incentive is clearly defined and tied to tangible results (i.e., performance-based or results -
8
-Participation is voluntary
-Results are measured using a "scorecard"
Example 1:
Rockingham County, NC
Employee Gainshairing Program
-Provides monetary awards or vacation days to employees who submit suggestions that:
-save work time
-reduce costs
-improve work methods
-improve quality of services
-Monetary incentive up to $5,000/suggestion for tangible and intangible ideas
Awards for Tangible Benefits:
-Must demonstrate significant dollar savings or cost benefit
-Based on 1" year net savings generated during the 1" 12 months following implementation
-Cash award of 10% of the 1" year net savings up to $5,000
Criteria for Award Consideration of an Intangible Idea:
1. Promotes an enterprise solution
2. Performance or productivity improvement that is easily identified and understood
3. Ingenuity of the idea and/or effort involved in research and development of the idea
4. Implied cost savings but not to the degree that it becomes a tangible idea or improves the quality of
service beyond current levels
5. Low cost to implement (in dollars) and easy to implement
Award Amount Number of Criteria Met
$100 or 1 vacation day 2
1 vacation day & $100 3
1 vacation day & $200 4
2 vacation days & $250 5
Performance Measurement Program (PMP)
-Provides financial rewards and managerial flexibility in pre -determined program areas
-Must meet pre -defined performance targets
-Unspent funds are pooled and reallocated back to participating departments
Two ways to earn PMP rewards:
Each of the following "objectives" comes with its own set of requirements, exclusions and awards
1) Provide excellent service outcomes through the efficient use of resources
2) Save county dollars
1) Provide excellent service outcomes through the efficient use of resources
-Participants must formulate a mission statement, goals, and 3 to 6 measureable objectives
-Performance data is monitored and recorded quarterly
-Achievement is defined in terms of the number of objectives met divided into the total number of
objectives, for example:
Sample Outcome Measures
3 out of 6=50% success
4 out of 5=80% success
5 out of 6=83% success
4 out of 4=100% success
2) Save County Dollars
-Pooled savings are calculated as the difference between the adjusted operating and capital budget totals
and the actual dollars spent at the close of the fiscal year.
-Pooled savings can be taken away if it is determined that they simply were not spent, delayed, or
significantly over -budgeted. Personnel costs are not included in pooled savings calculations
-Potential Shared Savings are based on 1) pooled savings & 2) number of employees. From the total
amount saved in the pool, 80% is eligible to count towards shared savings to participants. The other 20%
returns to the county fund balance.
-In any given year, participants may bank up to $700 (permanent full-time employees), and $100/part-
time employees per program area measured.
Save County Dollars Example
Program A has an annual budget of $500,000 and 5 employees. Program A achieved 4 out of 5
measurable objectives by the end of the fiscal year.
9
Measure Program A
FY Total Savings $5,000
After 20% to Fund Balance $4,000
Max Shared Savings (# employees x $700) $3,500
PMP Success Rate (4 out of 5 objectives met) 80%
Actual Shared Savings (80% of max shared savings) $2,800
Example 2:
City of High Point, NC - Bid to Goal Program
•A price estimate for performing a certain function is determined by an outside expert
-The estimate is a prediction of a competitive bid if one were sought
-The department responsible for producing the service is invited to match or even beat the bid
df successful, and savings are realized, the department provides the service at a lower cost and is
authorized to implement gainsharing among its employees
Bid to Goal with Gainsharing Component:
-Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation — The department submitted a bid that reduced operating
expenses by 30 percent and met the consultant's bid to goal target.
-Department was granted a three-year contract which specified performance and safety standards and
authorized gainsharing for cost savings beyond the department's bid.
-Half of additional savings were retained in an equity fund and the other half was distributed to
employees as gainsharing bonuses.
-The program was successful and expanded to three other divisions in the department.
Fiscal Year Bid to Goal Actual Savings Gainsharing Individual Gainsharing
Prescribed Savings Distribution Awards
1999-2000 $290,000 $336,142 $17,496 $1,458
2000-2001 290,000 303,229 5,568 468
2001-2002 290,000 255,960 0 0
2002-2003 290,000 362,874 1,164 97
2003-2004 355,744 514,556 6,768 564
County Manager Smith noted that at the start of any incentive program, there would
probably be more submissions in the beginning, but they would dwindle over time.
Commissioner Griffith asked how much money Rockingham County had saved.
Jackson said the dollar amount was unknown.
Commissioner Boone said rewarding employees for tangible savings was a good idea, but
there were concerns about the intangible component. He mentioned if rewards were provided to
departments that were under budget, this could have happened because they were over budget to
start with. Boone said, "The idea of having the county compete with private entities in bidding
on the price for providing a service might be a good idea, but it would be difficult to implement."
Boone said he would like to see the program expanded for department heads and the county
manager at the highest levels. He said one mentioned criteria was that no services could be
reduced, and this might need to be modified. Boone noted an example where a former health
director had eliminated some clinics due to low participation. He said another component in the
gainsharing presentation was that no reduction in employment could be implemented, and he felt
this should be evaluated and modified.
Commissioner Robertson said coming under budget was already an expectation of the
county departments. He said governments sometimes got into trouble due to focusing on
fairness almost more than effectiveness. Robertson said some departments operated under State
guidelines, such as social services, and these programs couldn't be changed. He mentioned that
someone would have to administer any incentive program, and it shouldn't be an "accounting
nightmare" for the department heads and payroll. Robertson said he would be in favor of a
percentage for hard savings, but a bureaucracy shouldn't be created to make the system fair.
Chairman Johnson said any incentives should be individualized. He agreed with
Commissioner Boone that department heads should be rewarded by some mechanism for
creating an environment where "creativity and personal initiative flourished." Johnson continued
by saying, "I do have a certain aversion to the intangible aspect, because to some degree, that
process inevitably becomes subjective. The intangible is difficult to measure."
10
Chairman Johnson said that if time permitted during the budget review sessions, further
discussion could occur on incentives or the gainsharing program.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Frederika Savage, a resident of Statesville, NC, said she was an animal rescuer and a
volunteer at Animal Services and Control. She said since the beginning of this year, 25 dogs,
with one-half of them being pit bulls or mixes, had been rescued. Ms. Savage paraphrased
Mahatma Gandhi as follows: "A society is judged by its compassion for animals." She
mentioned a desire for Iredell County to take a leadership role in treating animals better in North
Carolina and in the south.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT: County Manager Ron Smith reviewed the
following items with the board.
Quarterly Financial Update: Smith distributed spreadsheets detailing current revenues
and expenditures. He noted that sales tax revenues remained lower than previously estimated,
but other departments, such as building and land development, would make up for the loss.
Budget Review Sessions: Smith distributed the following chart that lists meeting dates
relating to the FY 2013-14 budget. He requested the board members to review their schedules to
determine if there were any conflicts with the meetings.
IREDELL COUNTY BUDGET
REVIEW SCHEDULE
FY13-14
DATE/TIME
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
May 7, 2013*
Budget Presented to Board of Commissioners
7:00 p.m.
May 16, 2013
First Review of Proposed FY14 Budget & Update of FY13 Budget
5:30 p.m.
• Schedules, Valuations, Projections
• General Government Departments (See list on second page)
May 21, 2013
Development and Human Services Departments
5:00 p.m.— 6:30 p.m.
May 23, 2013
public Safety Departments
5:30 p.m.
May 30, 2013
Education
5:30 p.m.
• Mooresville Graded School District -5:30 p.m.
• Iredell-Statesville Schools — 6:15 p.m.
• Mitchell Community College — 7:00 p.m.
Cultural and Recreation Departments
June 4, 2013*
Public Hearing
7:00 p.m.
June 6, 2013
Continue Review (if needed)
5:30 p.m.
June 11, 2013
Continue Review (if needed)
5:30 p.m.
June 18, 2013*
Budget Adoption
7:00 p.m.
* Denotes meetings that will be held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room. (These are regular board meetings.)
All other meetings will be held in the South Wing Conference Room of the Iredell County Government Center, 200
South Center Street, Statesville
School Facilities Task Force Studv: Smith advised that the school systems desired to
present the findings of the school facilities task force study. He suggested that a joint meeting
occur at 5:00 PM, on Tuesday, May 7 in the South Wing Conference Room. (The meeting will
be before the regular meeting at 7 PM.)
CLOSED SESSION: MOTION by Chairman Johnson to enter into closed session at
8:30 PM, in regards to Economic Development— G.S. 143-318.11 (a) (4).
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays — 0.
(RETURN TO OPEN SESSION AT 9:35 PM)
ADJOURNMENT: OTION by Commissioner Griffith at 9:35 PM, to adjourn the
meeting. (NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 5:00 PM, in the South Wing
Conference Room for a meeting with the school systems followed by the regular meeting at
7 PM in Commissioners' Meeting Room, Iredell County Government Center, 200 South Center
Street, Statesville, NC.)
VOTING: Ayes — 5; Nays - 0
Approval:
12
Clerk to the Board