Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19731001MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY ~.~G,J BDARD OF COMMTSSTONr~tS October 1, 1973 The Board of County Commissioners of Orange County mat in regular session on Monday, October 1, 1973, at 10 o'clock A,M, in the Conference Room of the Social Services Building. Members Present: Chairman C, Norman Tdalker and Commissioners Flora Garrett, Henry S. Walker, Richard E. Whitted and Melvin Whitfield. Members Absent: None Minutes of the previous meetings were read and approved after corrections. The Chairman recognized Mra. Alioe Welch, Member of the Chapel Hill Board of Aldermen. Mrs. Welch read the following Resolution: "WRr~tEAS the North Carolina State Highway Commission and the U. 5. Department of Transportation have proposed to cpnatruat a link of Interstate 40 from Hillsborough, North Carolina, to the Research Triangle Park, and • WHEREAS these parties, in an khvironmental Impact Statement prepared by the North Carolina Highway Commission, have selected what has become known as Alternate ~1 as the route Por this link, and WHEREAS the entire portion of this route that runs through Orange County consists of rural and park-like areas and serves as residences for many persons associated with the two universities, Duke and UNC, and for many who have sought, over the years, to preserve the natural character of the area, to the advantage of both academic communities and to the City of Durham and the Town of Chapel Hill, and WHEREAS, the said route would come very close to a portion of the Duke Forest, a priceless nature preserve, necessarily doing some damage to its character; and would be bridged over the headwaters of New Hope Creek, a tiny creek in its natural state which has been utilized far forty ('40) years by the two universities for research in the life saiencea, and, moat recently, has been a part pf the International Biological Program; and would be close to the newly formed Rio State Park, and WHc-'REAS the area already has a multiplicity of major highways: US 7p, I-~.0, US is-SO1, z-85 and the Durham A[presaway; and the proposed link of I-1~0 would further the process of making the area & corridor of highways, - thereby disrupting normal living and communication and destroy forever a park and greenbelt area, indispensable to the life of the area and irreplaceable once destroyed, and WHEREAS if the highway moat b® built, it should be built in an area more suitable for such construction, NOW, THEREF'DRE, 8E IT RESOLVED that the Board of Aldermen of Chapel Hill opposed the construction of I-l~.0 along the Alternate ~`1 Route. Also, it is further resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the Town of Carrboro, Hillsborough, and to the Orange County Commis~ionera together with a request that they join Chapel Hill in expressing opposition to the project as now planned. Adopted this, the 2LFth day of September, 1973." Mrs, tdelah stated that she hoped Orange County s~rould endorse the Resolution. Charles Johnston, Chairman of the County Planning Board, advised the Board that he had polled five (5) of the six (6) members of the Planning Board by telephone and that he was unable to reach one (1) of the six (6) members, but that the five (s) members that were contacted were unanimously against the proposed Alternate 1 of I-~.0. John G, Parks, representing the New Hopa Improvement Association, stated that the membership voted unanimously to oppose the routing of I-!}0 through Orange County as defined by the construction of Alternate 1. Hs filed a petition from the Association with the Clerk. Said petition reads as follows: To: County Commissioners of Orange County, N. C. From: President of New Hope Improvement Association, Inc. At a regular meeting of the New Hope Improvement Association on September 11, 1973, the members voted unanimously for strong o osiosit__i_o~n to the routing oP Interstate 1~0 through Orange County as defined by the orN th Carolina State Highway Commission as Alternate On®. ~_~•~ In the spring of 1971 our Association presented its formal opposition to Alternate One at a Commissioners hearing in Orange County (public hearing). The membership is reaffirming its opposition and pleads that the County Commissioners oppose the Alternate One seleotion. An Officer or Board l4ember will willingly accept an invitation to appear before the Commissioners for presentation of detailed points upon which the opposition is based. Aa President of the Association which represents nearly 500 residents of southeast Orange County, I urgently request that the Commissioners strongly consider the preliminary petition and to note opposition to Alternate One of Interstate 40. Harold Jernigan, Principal of Carolina F`rienda School, said the construction of I-40 would create safety problems for the students who attended the school and that the area around the school was used as a tesahing labatory, however, the safety factor was a prime concern of the Trustees of the School. He stated that Mt. Sinai Road would have to be widened and thus would encroach on 17uke Forest and that he did not feel the road would be adequate to handle the overflow of traffic from the I-!}0 route. Mr. Jernigan said the highway is intended to gat traffic through Orange County, not into the County. He said that the Board of Trustees of the School had noted unanimously to oppose Alternate 1 of I-40. Robert Fankhauser and Dr. David McFadden, residents of the area, spoke in opposition to the routing of an interstate through the area. The Chairman then inquired if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the construction of Alternate I of I-40. Fred S. Cates, Mayor of the Town of Hillsborough, stated that his Soard had evaluated all the proposed routes and that they did strongly endorse the recommendation of the highway experts. He said his Board had no re&son to change the position that they had previously taken in endorsing the aonatruation of Alternate I of I-!}0. Oscar Compton, a resident of the Cedar Grove area, said he felt the construction of I-40 was being objected to by environmentalist. He stated that I-i~0 would serve as s farm to market road for the citizens who produce food and fiber for the State; and that in order to produce the food and the fiber for the markets farmers were forced to clear the land and cut the trees. Mr. Compton stated that farmers of Person and Caswell counties, as well sa those of northern Orange County would be benefited by the aonstruotion of I-4q as it would eliminate their having to drive through the city of Raleigh in order to reach the market areas. William C. Flay, former member of the Board of Commissioners, stated that the construction of Alternate T oP I-40 would benefit the citizens of the northern area of the county and that he could not see where it could damage the citizens of the southern portion of the county. He stated that the proposed route would not only be used by the farmers of his area, but that it would provide a more direct route for the citizens who worked in Chapel Hill and at the Research Triangle Park. Commissioner Flora Garrett stated that I would like to ask the Council of Govern- ments to add to the impact statement a recommendation. Said recommendation would read as follows: "One of the problems resulting from State and Federal highway and Interstate planning is that many times local government officials feel that the results of such planning are handed to them only for comment and review. Because of a lack of direct invelvment around the conference table in road manning some officials feel that they must shout to be heard and delays and conflicts arise. It is strongly recommended that in reworking the draft environment impact statement that an opportunity for working on the Interstate projects as a team be implemented between local, State and Federal officials. Commissioner Richard F,. Whitted stated that from the standpoint of environmental impact, Alternate I is the worst possible route for I-40, as it would nut a 400 foot wide strip through Orange County that is wider than any of the existing interstates. This route for I-40 would overload I-85 between Hillsborough and Greensboro because both routes will share the current highway. He stated that it was his understanding that the proposed Alternate I would create more than one problem for Durham County as it will take a proposed school site, affect a middle-income housing area and oangest the Aurham EScpreasway. I feel that the State Highway Department needs to go back to the drawing board and take another look, he stated. Commissioner Henry Walker stated that after listening again to both sides of the argument that he hadn't seen fit to change his mind from the decision that had been reached by the Soard soma eighteen months prior. He said I don't think that anything we decide will make any difference in where they will put I-40. Commissioner Melvin Whitfield stated that he was not familiar enough with the background information concerning I-40 but that he felt that from the discussion that he had heard that the State Highway Commission should take another look at the project. Chairman *Iorman Walker said he felt that the Board should take some action either for Alternate I or against Alternate I. He said every delay is costly. X25 Commissioner Flora Garrett moved that the Board forward a copy of the minutes of this meeting to the Board of Transportation and to inform them that the hoard of Commissioners feels that none of the Alternates of I-)+0 are perfect. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted aecpnded Commissioner Flora Garrett's motion. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Flora Garrett amended her motion to add "it is strongly recommended that in reworking the draft environmental impact statement that an opportunity for working on the Tnteratate projects as a team be implemented between local, Stafe and Federal officials". Commissioner Richard E. Whitted agreed to the amendment. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Cammissionera Garrett, Whitted and Whitfield voted eye. Commissioners Henry S. Walker and Norman Walker voted nay. The Chairman declared the motion passed. Chairman Norman Walker recognized Gera P, Sykes of Bingham Township. Mr. Sykes stated that he and the other land owners of his area wished to discuss with the Board the plane that the County. had relative to the use of the land that the County was now attempting to purchase. The County Administrator advised Mr. Sykes that it was not the policy oP the Board to discuss at a public meeting land purchase agreements. Mr. Sykes was also informed that the Board would be happy to meet with the citizens involved, but they did not, at this time, have any detailed plans for the area. Chairman Norman Walker referred the Board to Item #10 on the Agenda. He then recognized A. B. Coleman, Sr., Attorney for University Builders. Mr. Coleman requested the Beard to rescind its previous action of revoking the building permit that had been issued to his client. He stated that the lot in question was only five (~~) under the variance. It, further, appeared that a number of the lots within the subdivision wsa undersized and that the homes that had been built on these lots had not damaged the area. Mr. Coleman stated that his client would not have purchased the property if he had been aware that it did not meet the requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance, however, he was not aware of the fact and that he had spent considerable time and monies on the lot in question. Further hardship wee being imposed on his client as he now found himself in the position of having to face two law suits relative to the matter. Mr. Coleman stated that he would prefer to. have one of these law suits settled by having the Board of Commissioners to reconsider its action of revoking the building permit that had been issued for Lot #'22 of Heritage Hills. John 1~oodaon, Attorney Por Hector Farxiea and Rufus Clark, objected to the request of Mr, Coleman that the Board reverse its decision relative to the revoking of the building permit. He stated that his clients were merely trying to protect their property. That the fast that Lot #22 was only five (5~) per cent undersized was not the question. The question was the fact that the lot did not meet the requirements of the County Zoning Ordinance. He stated that his clients had complied with the provisions that require that a reasonable prise shall be offered for the purchase of property in question. He stated that his clients had offered to purchase Lot #22 from University Builders, however, the company had not responded to their offer. Mr. Clark and Mr. Parries spoke in defense of their position as the adjoining land owners to Lot #22. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted stated that he felt the Board should pursue whatever course of action that was taken by the Board on August 6, 1973. Nb?, Coleman presented a certified copy of a Quitclaim Deed from Roberts Construction Compareyy to University 3uilders. This deed had been recorded on Fridaytt September 28, 1973, and it conveyed approximately four thousand five hundred (11.,500/ additional square feet to University Builders for Lot.#22. The extra footage comas from the right of xsy and the street that fronts Lot #r22 of Heritage Hi11s, Mscussion ensued. The Board requested the County Attorney to comment on the validity of the quitclaim deed. Mr. Cheshire stated that Roberta Construction Company did riot relinquish its fee simple title in the property even though the streets had been dedicated pre the subdivision plat; and that in his opinion the quitclaim deed did convey that vested interest. Mr. Woodson stated that he wsa not aware of the existence of the quitclaim deed, therefor®, he could not render an opinion on the validity of the deed until proper 'research of the matter was completed. Discussion ensued. The Board requested the County Attorney, the Attorneys for University Builders, and the Attorney for Mr. Parries and Mr. Clark, to research the technical questions involved with the situation and to submit their opinions on the subject to the Soard on October 16, 1973. r ~~ Chairman Norman Walker recognized Giovanni Michol, who was present to represent hie father, in a re-zoning request on 9.21 acres in Ens Township. The Zoning Officer advised the Board that Mr. Micol, who is a member of the County Planning Board, had taken no part in the deliberations of the re-zoning request when it had been presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Haithcock stated that the Planning Board had approved the request for the re-zoning of 9.21 sores from a residential area to a mobile home park area. A letter from the Health Department was presented. Said letter stated "that soil conditions in the general area are aaceptabla for sub- surface sewage disposal systems, although percolation teat should be run before final design could be made for such systems". Upon motion of Commissioner Henry S. Walker, it was moved that the request of J. H. Micol, Jr., to re-zone 9.21 acres in Eno Township from a residential area to a mobile home park area be approved. Commissioner Melvin Whitfield seconded the motion. Chairman idprman Walker called fox a vote on the motion. Commissioners Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker and Melvin Whitfield voted aye. Commissioners Flora Garrett and Richard E. Whitted voted nay. Chairman Norman Walker declared the motion passed. The Zoning Officer presented a request from Earl J. Latta to re-zone 2.6 acres in Eno Township from residential to commercial. Mr. Haithcock informed the Board that the County Planning Board had recommended the approval of the request because the property adjoins property that belongs to Mr. Latta and that the adjoining property is zoned as commercial as is other properties located in the immediate area. Upon motion of Commissioner Rieh~.rd E. Whitted it was moved that the Board accept the recommendation of the County Planning Board and grant the request of Earl J. Latta to re-zone 2.6 acres in Eno Township from a residential area to a commercial area. Commissioner Henry S. Walker aeaonded the motion. Chairman Norman Walker called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Flora Garrett, Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker, Richard E. Whitted. and Melvin Whitfield voted aye. Chairman Norman Walker declared the motion passed. The Zoning Officer presented a preliminary plat of Retlyn Acres, property of Everette & kbelyn S. Ruch loaated in Chapel Hill Township doted August 7.1+, 1973. A letter from the Board of Transportation was presented. Said letter stated "that the streets in the proposed subdivision were satisfactory". The Zoning Officer advised the Board that the County Planning Board had approved the following plats: Final plat of a one acre lot loaated in Chapel Hill Township, property of Margaret Daniel, dated September, 1973. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry S, Walker, seconded by Chairman Norman Walker, it was moved and unanimously adopted that the plat of Margaret Daniel ba approved. Final plat of University Acres Subdivision. Upon motion of Commissioner Richard E. Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Henry $. Walker, it w&s mpved and unanimously adopted, that the plat of University Acres be approved. Final .plat of property belonging to Richard L. Libby. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry 5. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Flora Garrett, it was mpved and unanimously adopted, that the plat be approved. The County Manager presented the following Resolution: CLEAN WATER BOND ACT AMENDMENT WHEREAS, under the authority of the Clean Water Bvnd Act of 1971, the voters of North Carolina in an election held on May 6, 1972, approved the issuance by :the State of $150,000,ODO in Clean Water Bonds to assist unite of local government in matching federal grants far financing sewage treatment and collection system and water supply system projects; and, WHEREAS, an amendment to federal law combined with a provision in the Clean Water Bond Act have had the effect of freezing approximately $30,000,000 of the total $150,000,000 in authorized bonds; and, ~~f WHEREAS, a technical amendment to the Clean Water Bond Act will be submitted to the voters vn November 6, 1973 (Issue No. 2 on the ballot), which, if approved, will serve to unfreeze the approximately $30,000,000 in water pollution control money. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby endorse the technical amendment to the Clean Water Bond Act (Issue No. 2 on the ballot Nov amber 6, 1973), whiah will free approximately $30,000,000 in bond proceeds previously approved by the voters for water pollution control purposes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners urges all citizens of Orange County to vote for this amendment (Issue No. 2) on November 6. Dissuasion eTisued: Upon motion of Commissioner Flora Garrett, seconded by Commissioner Richard E. Wh~.tted, it was moved and unanimously adopted, that the Board approve said Resolution. Chairman Norman Walker recognized Betty June Hayes, Register of Deeds. Mies Hayes discussed the gropossd bill that was being spo~isored by the North Carolina Register of Deeds Association. She advised the Board that it would provide an increase of between twenty five (25;x) percent and thirty (30°x) percent in the majority of the fees now being collected by that department. The Bill is now in a sub-committee of the Senate. Upon motion of Commissioner Eenry S. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Richard E. Whitted, it wee moved and unanimously adopted that the Board endorse the Uniform Fee Bill that is being sponsored by the North Carolina Registers of Deeds Association. Chairman Norman Walker advised the Board that the Clerk of Court had requested that they need to appoint a member to the Fury Commission. The name of Dewey Icing of Chapel Hill was placed in nomination. Dissuasion ensued. Upon motion of Com:niasioner Flora Garrett, aeaonded by Commissioner Richard E. Whitted, it was moved that Mr. King be elected by acclamation as a member of the Jury Commission. It was brought to the attention of the Board that two vacancies did exist on the Chapel Hi11 Planning Board. The names of Mrs. Gus Connelly of South Lakeshore Drive and Robert Morehouse were presented for consideration. It was pointed out that the term of George Spransy had expired and that Mr. Spransy was eligible for reappointment. Arthur Hurow had resigned as a member, therefore, hie successor would fill his unexpired term. Commissioner Flora Garrett placed in nomination the name of George Spransy to serve a full term as a member of the Chapel Hill Planning Board. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry S. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Flora Garrett, it was moved and unanimously adopted, that George Spransy be reappointed as a member of the Chapel Hill Planning Board. Mrs. Gus Connally was nominated to fill the unexpired term of Arthur Hurow on the Chapel Hill Planning Board. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted moved that the nomination be closed. Mrs. Connelly was appointed by acclamation to fill the unexpired term of Arthur Hurow on the Chapel Hill Planning Board. Chairmen Norman Walker recognized Roger Walton. Mr. Walton stated that he was present to represent the Triangle Housing Development Corporation. He requested the Board to appropriate the sum of $1,000.00 to the Triangle Housing Development Corporation. This money would be used to begin initial operation that would result in a program that would provide housing for senior citizens. He stated that the Iiouaing Development Corporation would be for parsons of limited means and that two hundred (200) unite were being planned for the Region J Area. It was proposed that Orange County would receive twenty four (?J+) unite of housing. Discussion ensued. Chairman Norman Walker stated that he would like to di souse the matter with Willie Glover, Supervisor of the Farmer's Home Administration, prior to making any decision on the request. Tt was agreed that the Board would have Mr. Glover study the proposal that was being made by the Triangle Housing Development Corporation, and that Mr. Glover, Mr. Herndon or Mr. Welsh meet jointly with the Board on October 16th. ~~~ The following letter from Robert J. We11s, Jr., Mayor of the Town of Carrboro, North Carolina, was presented: "Puranant to the Charter of the Town of Carrboro and the General Statutes of the State of North Carolina, it is respectfully requested that the Orange County Commisaionera appoint the following members to the Planning Board of the Town of Carrboro to represent the Carrboro Planning and Zoning Ai strict out aide the Town limits. LTarold Williams 5 year term Top Cheek 4 year term Don Wilhoit 3 year term Bi11y Morgan 2 year term Norris Rap 1 year term Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated and will allow our Planning Board to once again get down to the business at hand". Discussion ensued. It was pointed out that until the Board approved the names submitted to them by the Town that the Carrboro Planning Board could not officially act. Upon motion of Conaaiasioner Henry S. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Melvin Whitfield, it was moved that the list of names that were presented in the letter from the Mayor of the Town of Carrboro be approved as the appointees of the Carrboro Planning Board. Chairman Norman Walker called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Flora Garrett, Henry S. Walker, Norman Walker and Melvin Whitfield voted aye. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted voted nay. Chairman Norman Walker declared the motion passed. The County Manager advised the Board that they needed to formalize the adoption of the 1973-1974 County Budget. This budget amounted to $6,335,$70.00. The County Manager presented copies of the proposed "Appropriation Resolution" and the "Tax Levy Resolution". Upon motion of Commissioner Henry 3. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Norman Walker, it was moved that the Board adopt the "Appropriation Resolution". Discussion enau9d. Mr. (~attis stated that the "Appropriation Resolution" needed to be amended due to the fact that he wanted to include the item that was listed under School Debt Service into the General Fund Item. Discussion ensued. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry S. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Norman Walker, it wsa moved that the previous motion relative to the "Appropriation Resolution" be amended and that the County Administrator be authorized to move the item entitled School Debt Service into the General Fund Item. APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION Bond Fund $ 36,300. Facilities 13,000. General Fund 4,970,170. Property Revaluation 25,000. School CO 1,444,800. School CE 1,5].!1.,445. Welfare 495,995. A.F.D.C, 604,800. A•D• 113,500. A•A• 105,410. Pfedicaid 46,750. Revenue Sharing Fund 347,200. Chapel Hill Carrboro School Administrative Unit 731,900. Dogwood Acres Sanitary District 8,540. Greater Chapel Hill Fire District 1,650. South Orange Fire District 20,500. Eflend Fire District 21,400. Eno Fire District 16,000. .. _._ --_- .1.29 Orange Fire District $ 18,300. blew Hops Fire District 27,700. TDTAL APPROPRIATIONS $10,563,360. The appropriation for School Capital Outlay shall be divided as Follows: County Unit $ 736,000. Chapel Hill Unit 708,000. TDTAL $ 1,444,800. The appropriation for School Current Expense shall be divided as follows: County Unit $ 75D,375. Chapel Hill Unit 764,070. TDTAL $ 1,514,445. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry 5. Walker, seconded by Commissioner Flora Garrett, it was moved that the following "Tax Levy Resolution" be unanimously adopted: TAX LEVY RESOLUTION For the General Fund a rate of $.60 cents per $7.00.00 assessed valuation. Total rate per $100.00 assessed property valuation - $.60 1. A Special School Tax of $0.245 on the $100.00 of property valuation shall be 'levied on all property in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District. 2. A Special Fire Tax of $0.06 on the $100.00 of property valuation shall be levied on all property in the Greater Chapel Hill Fire District. 3. A Speaial Fire Tax of $0.10 on the $100.00 of property valuation shall be levied on ell property in the South Orange Fire District. 4. A Speaial Fire Tax of $0.04 on the $100.00 of property valuation on all property within the Orange Rural Fire Protection District. 5. A Special Fire Tax of $0.08 on the $100.00 of property valuation on all property within the Eno Rural Fire Protection District. 6. A Speaial Fire Tax of $0.10 on the $100.00 of property valuation on all property within the New Hope Rural Fire Protection District. 7. A Special Fire Tax of $0.08 on the $100.00 of property valuation on all property within the Efland Rural Fire Protection District. 8. A Special Sanitary Tax of $0.25 on the $100.00 of property valuation on all property within the Dogwood Acres Sanitary District. q. On each open female dog (6) months of age or older a License coating $2.00 shall be required. On all other doge a License coating $1.00 shall be required. 10. In accordance with Section B of the Revenue Aat (Article 2, Chapter 5, of the General Statures) and any other sections of the General Statutes so permitting, there are hereby levied privilege liaenae taxes in the maximum amount permitted on all businesses, trades, oaaupations, or professions which the County is entitled to tax. Chairman Normaa Walker informed the Board that Item ~r`12 that dealt with the Eno River Valley Agreement needed to be discussed, however, that due to other matters he was going to be forced to excuse himself from the meeting. It was agreed that Ttem #12 would be deferred until the October 16th meeting. Discussion ensued relative to when the Board should plan to meet in order to proceed with the reviews that were being presented from the Hoard of Equalisation and Review. ~~ Upon motion of Commisaianer Richard E. Whitted, seconded by Cowai.asioner Remy S. Walker, it was moved that the Board recess until after the Public Hearing that was scheduled for October 2, 1973, in the Courtroom oP the Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. C. Norman Walker, Chairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 2, 1973 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met at 8 o~aloak P.M. on Tuesday, October 2, 1973, in the Superior Courtroom at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Members Present: Chairman C. Norman Welker and Commissioners Henry S. Walker, Flora Garrett, Richard E. Whitted and Malvin Whitfield. Members Absent: Nona. This meeting was scheduled as a Public Hearing and was held jointly with the County Planning Board. Chairman Norman Walker called the meeting to order. He turned the Chair over to Charles W. Johnston, Chairman of the County Planning Board, who praaeeded to cenduat the Public Hearing. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing Chairman Johnston turned the meeting back to Chairman Norman Walker. For a detailed record of this Public Hearing you are hereby referred to the minute docket of the Orange County Planning Board. Due to the lateness of the hour the Board agreed to adjourn until Thursday, October 11, 1973, for the purpose of reviewing the protests that had been filed with the Board of Equalization and Review. C. Norman Walker, Chairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COP~lMISSIONER3 October 11, 1973 The Board of County Commissioners of Orange County met in epeaial session on Thursday, October 17., 1973, at 8:00 o~olock P.M. in the District Courtroom of the Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Members Present: Chairman C. Norman Walker and Commissioners Henry 3. Walker, Flora Garrett, Richard E. Whitted and Melvin Whitfield. Members Absent: None This meeting was held for the purpose of considering appeals of property valuation that ware not completed by the Board of Equalization and Review. Prior to the considerations the 9oard of Commissioners undertook one item of business. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry S, Walker, seconded by Commissioner Flora Garrett, it was moved and unanimously adopted, that Don S. 2+Iatheaon, William C. Ray, Victor Sharpe, Manley Snipes, tors. Doc Griffin, Arthur W. Crabtree, William Richardson, Mr a. Ernest Price and A. C. Crowder, Sr. be appointed as members of the Northern Orange County Steering Committee to plan promotion oP the Forthcoming State School Bond Issue. Disousaion ensued. It was the consensus of opinion of the Board that this committee should organize and be responsible for promoting the proposed School Bond Issue in Orange County. Chairman Norman Walker called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Flora Garrett, C. Norman Walker, Henry S. Walker, Richard E. Whitted and Melvin Whitfield voted aye.