Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19750407MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Monday, April 7, 1975 5~1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, April 7, 1975, at ten o clock a.m., in the Commissioners Room at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, N. C. All members were present. Chairman Garrett referred to Item I on the Agenda. Item I: Daniel H. Pollitt: Review of Local Legislative Act Prohibiting the Practice of Palmistry by Gypsies in Orange County. Mr. Pollitt presented a review of G.S. 14-401.5 with specific reference to John - Mitchell and his wife, Sister Bessie, who is a Fortune Teller. He stated that the Town of Chapel Hill did issue to Sister Bessie a Fortixne. Telling License at a fee of twa hundred fifty dollars ($250), however, after the license was issued the Town requested that the license be returned as it was in violation with an existingg Local State Statute. Mr. Pollitt stated that the profession of fortune telling was prahil~ited in sixty-five (65) counties of the State and that he was of the opinion that this Statute was discrimi- natory due to the fact that it made specific reference to a race of people and in this instance the language "Gypsy and/or Gypsies" was written into the language of enactment. He requested that the Board have Orange County removed from the provisions of G.S. 14-401._` on the basis that the law was discriminatory against the Gypsy race. Cpmmissioner Jan Pinney spoke in opposition to the request. He stated his apposition was based on the filmflam practices of certain individuals and that certain segments of people ;could be taken advantage of if the practice of fortune telling was exempt from the law. Commissioner Richard E. Whined and Norm Gustaveson spoke in favor of the request. Commissioner Norman Walker requested time to consider the matter because he had no knowledge of citizen reaction to the request. Flora Chairman/Garrett stated she had no opposition to tlie:practice of fortune telling. Commissioner Walker moved that the request be tabled. Commissioner Pinney seconded this motion. Chairman Garrett calle for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Pinney and Walker ~ • voted aye. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson and Whitted voted nay. Chairman Garrett then declared the motion failed. Commissioner Whined moved that the Board request the Orange County delegation in the General Assembly to take the proper action to have Orange County removed from the pro- visions of G.S. 14-401.5. Commissioner Gusteveson seconded the motion. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson and Whitted opted aye. Commissioners Pinney and Walker voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. The Clerk was instructed to advise the Drange County Representatives of the action taken on G.S. 14=401.5. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 2 on the Agenda: (Mr. Zeb Terry: To Propose A Resolution Prohibiting Hunting in Eno Township of Orange County.) Chairman Garrett stated there was going to be a Public Hearing, Friday night, April.ll 1975, in Graham, concerning the rules and regulations to upcoming hunting regulations conducted by the Wildlife Commission. Chairman Garrett recognized Zeb Terry. Mr. Terry requested the Board to consider adopting a resolution that would prohibit deer hunting in Eno Township. He explained that the was a spokesman for persons that lived on Jack Walker Road in Eno Township. And that the request for a resolution was motivated by the fact that fnr six (6) weeks, during the deer hunting season, the residents of that area were afraid to go about normal routines due to the fact that the area was overrun with hunters. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he was in favor of sending a Resolution tv the ~ Public Hearing that would be conducted by the Wildlife Commission on Friday, April 11, 1975 Commissioner Walker requested that prior to the Board's taking any action on Mr. Terry's request that they recognize Randy Porterfield, District Wildlife Bioligist, for a presentation. Mr. Porterfield explainded how the deer population was controlled, what the consequences were if they were not controlled, and recommended that the Board give legislative support for Wildlife Enforcement Officers to enforce trespassing laws and to request the Sheriff's Department to enforce trespassing laws in connection with deer hunting. Discussion ensued between Mr. Porterfield, Mr. Terry, and members of the Board. Commissioner Pinney suggested that the Board prohibit deer hunting for one year in Eno Township. His reason being that it would allow an opportunity to judge whether or not the Sheriff s Department had adequate personnel to enforce the law, currently in effect ~ ~ Orange County, that prohibited hunting from the road right-of way. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker moved that no action be taken on the matter and that each 5~x Commissioner speak individually on the subject of deer hunting. This motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Pinney moved that the Board request the Wildlife Commission to pro- ' hibit deer hunting in Eno Township for a period of one year only. Commissioner Gustaveson seconded this motion. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Whined suggested that the motion be reopened in order to include properties located south of I-85. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker spoke in opposition to the motion and he requested that the Board hold a Public Hearing on the matter. Further discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Pinney, Gustaveson and Whitted aye. Commissioner Walker voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Board request that before the Wildlife Conauission takes any action on opening up any lands south of I-85 for deer hunting that they hold a Fublic Hearing on the matter and that this Public Hearing be located in a convenient place for the residents of the area. Commissioner Whined seconded this motion. Discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Pinney, Gustaveson and Whined voted aye. Commissioner Walker voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Board recommend to the Wildlife Commission that they seriously consider other alternatives of controlling deer herds other than by hunting. Commissioner Whitted seconded this motion. Discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Pinney;. Gustaveson and Whitted voted aye. Commissioner Walker voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. The Clerk was instructed to forward to the Wildlife Commission a copy of the action taken by the Board on the matter of deer hunting. Commissioner Walker requested that this notice specifically show how each Board member voted. Chairman Garrett referred to Item III on the Agenda. Item III: Mr. Tom Ward, Social Services Director. A. To Present Tentative Public Assistance Budget far Fiscal Year 1975-1976. B. To Review Title XX Amendments to the Social Security Act. Mr. Ward presented to the Board a copy of the Estimated 1975-1976 Social Services Budget. He stated that the Estimated Budget had been approved by the Social Services Board and that it represented only a tentative estimate of the anticipated needs of his Department. Commissioner Walker moved that the Board approve the 1975-1976 Estimated Budget £or the Social Services Department. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker stated that he felt his motion had died for the lack of a second since discussion had ensued after his motion. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Board accept the Tentative Budget as pre- sented by the Social Services Department. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Pinney, Gustaveson, Whitted and Walker voted aye. Chairman Garrett declared the motion. passed. B. To Review Title XX Amendments to the Social Security Act. The Social Services Director stated that Title XX that amends the Social Security Act was of such a nature that he felt 'the Board would want adequate time to review and become familiar with the provisions of the legislation. The Board stated that they - had been wanting to meet with the members of the Board of Social Services and this might be the time to arrange such a meeting. It was agreed that the Board would meet, if desirable with the Board of Social Services on Thursday, May 1, 1975, at the Colonial Inn. ThE Board agreed to defer to Item eight (8) on the Agenda as representatives of the Triangle Housing Development Corporation were present. Item 8: Triangle Housing Development Corporation. Adelaide Walters, Representative of the three towns of the County, acted as spokes- man for the Housing Development Corporation. She introduced Charles Day and Pam Driestel with the request that they give background information and the proposed plans of the Housing Development Corporation. Mark Burnham of the Triangle Housing J Council of Governments presented the following Resolution: 503 "Resolved that the County of Orange oin with the other five counties of Region J and the State of North Caro~ina, in submitting an applicatipn to the Secretary of the Department of Housing.and Urban Development for a grant of up to $300,000 (from discretionary funds available to her under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to support Innovative Community Development projects) to implement a program of rural housing rehabilitation for owner and renter occupants in the six-county Region J. If this rant is secured, the program described in the attached "Abstract of Proposal will be carried out, in our behalf by the Triangle J Council of Governments and the Triangle Housing Development Corporation with the assist- ance of an agency or agencies of the State of North Carolina." Discssion ensued. Commissioner Gustaveson moved for the adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner ~_ Pinney seconded the motion. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney, Walker, and Whitted voted aye. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Chairman Garrett suggested that the Board should write its Congressman and Senators . about the lack of Community Funding that was being received for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. Mark Burnham offered to forward information about what was occurring in Orange County due to the lack of proper funding. Robert Mehlhorn of the Agricultural Extension Service introduced Donna Key and Ruth Burnett to the Board. Mr, Mehlhorn stated that these were the new 4~hI Assistants that had been employed through a State Grant Program. The Board agreed to defer to Item 11 on the Agenda as Lloyd Senter and Richard Gibbs, representatives of the South Orange Rescue Squad were present. Item 11: Mr, Lloyd Senter: To Request the County Make an Additional Appropriation of $5,000.00 _for. the South Orange Rescue Squad. Mr. Senter stated that the request for an additional appropriation was being made in order to assist with the salary of another employ~~ during the day. He reviewed the number of calls that were being received and stressed the hardships that were being incurred to the volunteer crew of the Rescue Squad. Discussion ensued. Upon motion of Commissioner Walker it was moved that the Board approve the request of $5,000.00 for the South Orange Rescue Squad and that this appropriation be taken _ from the Contingency Fund. Commissioner .Ian Pinney seconded the motion. Chairman Garrett called for a vote. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney, Walker and Whitted voted aye. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Chairman Garrett stated that she had a request of the South Orange Rescue Squad and that request was that their Budget request be cleared through the Orange County Emergency Medical Council. Mr. Senter agreed with the suggestion. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 4 on the Agenda. Item 4: Designation of County Representative to Wprk with State Office of Emergency Medical Service on the County wide EMS Communications Plan. Discussion ensued on .this matter. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Orange County Emergency Medical Services Council be designated as Orange County's representative to work with the State Office of Emergency Medical Service. Commissioner Jan Pinney seconded this motion. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney, Walker and Whitted voted aye. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Chairman Garrett referred to Item l4 on the Agenda. Item l4: Mr. E. N. Richards to Present an Appeal of the Tax Assessment of the University Mall Shopping Center in Chapel Hill. Bi11 Laws, Tax Supervisor; Paul AelaCourt, Lewis Mitchell,.and Tom Bradshaw, representing E. N. Richards were present. Chairman Garrett recognized Bill Laws. Mr. Laws stated that the original assessment on the University Mall was $6,365,200.00 based on a 373,206 feet of gross leasable area. The final set of plans showed 351,770 feet of gross leasable area which is currently due to some service area which is not leased. The average income is calculated on $3.48 per square foot for gross leasable area which would amount to $1,224,159.00 based on the kind of tenants from our shopping center manual. The land has been appraised at $45,000.00 per acre based on the total complex acreage of 39.5 acres. Paul DelaCourt was spokesman for E. N. Richards,~pwrier of the University Mall px'vperty. Mr. DelaCourt stated that North Hills appreciates the opportunity to express its feelings on this matter. "University Mall desires to be a good citizen and pay its fair share of ~ taxes, but by paying its fair share, it cannot afford to be taxed out of existance, which is the threat facing many income producing properties if values of this size are imposed for tax purposes. _ 504 1'he Tax Assessment on the.property for 1975 is $6,355,200.00 of which $4,587,700.00 is allocated to the improvements, and $1,777,500.00 to the land. The value of $4,587,700.00 placed on the improvements was derived by using a capital- ization method on income and resulted in what the Shopping 'Center Industry would recog- nize as a top dollar evaluation being placed on such improvements. There are two areas of concern about the value being placed on the improvements, and a more serious concern about the value placed on the land. Our two concerns with the vaiue placed on improvements stem from the fact that Mr. Laws indicated he felt there was 372,206 square feet of gross leasable area. Our review of more up-to-date as built plans, and, if necessary, our sworn guarantee as to the true sizes involved, will ultimately reduce the gross leasable area to 351,770 feet. Our second concern on the improvement value stems from the average income value assumed by Mr. Laws to be $3.48 per square foot. He used as an authority The ^ollars •- and Cents of Shopping Centers but selected a value for a center that is ' u~s~lished, rented, and operating' in a larger regional market than Chapel Hill. Our values per foot income do not approach $3.48, however, they are projected to reach that over the ten year period that such arrangements are normally programmed. As we turned our attention to the land value, which was the major source of concern, we felt it is excessive far many reasons. ' 1. The economic value is just not there - the true value_of any.. income producing property is the ability to earn net income. University Mall finds its income stabilized, and threatens to remain so due to the creation of additional retail space such as South Square, while at the same time experiencing tremendous expense increases, basically the high utility charges and the-rapidly escalating tax loads which greatly re- strict the ability of this kind of property to pay taxes that have been assessed under the current assessment rate. 2. Com arable land values, when reviewed, would .indicate there is a very e finite re atzons p etween the size of a piece of property and its value per acre as developed property.. As our. plot plan clearly shows, although we have a 40 acre site, only 10 acres- of it are under roof or income producing; 9.1 acres .are allocated to parking spaces, and 20.9 acres are in drives, aisles, planting areas, and other required design emenities which are not income producing, but rather expense producing, both to create and maintain. By the same token, all of those entities which I described, plus many other services, which I will discuss later, are normally supplied by Tax Authorities as opposed to, in this case, private ownership. 3. Industr -wide statistics would indicate that the land values and tax rates w zc ,we a u geted, which we are capable and certainly are willing to pay, are much less than what has been assigned to the property in Orange County, and specifically, University Mall. 4. The round rent which was negotiated and had to place a true market value on t~operty Boring that negotiation, and also was corroborated by an offer to buy, again clearly indicates that the value o~ the land is much lower than $1,777,500.00 assessed. 5. Many shopping centers, and especiallq-Fniversity Mall, supply a great number of services which are very expensive to provide and save a great deal of tax money inasmuch as they are supplied by private ownership as apposed to being supplied by the taxing authority. The creation and maintenance of the ,parking area, the outdoor lighting, the policing and Eraffic control, snow removal, utilities, maintenance, repairs, etc... are all services which create a great deal of expense to properties that are designed and maintained in this fashion, as opposed to other 'comparable retail properties.' For all those reasons, we suggest that the University Mall improvements be re- valued to reflect the reduced grass leasable area and a review of the per foot charge of $3.48 that has been assigned to it, and that the land be given a value of $736,500.00. To arrive at that value, we assume three components of property on our site at different values: 10 acres, under roof and income producing $45,000 per acre $450,000 9.1 acres, under parking, at $20,000 per acre 182,000 20.9 acres, aisles, driveways, planting areas, other public spaces at $5,000 per acre 100 $736,500 We realize the dilemma that Mr. Laws and the County Commissioners face in establish- ing true value, as well as the dileamia of what has become seemingly comparable values in the toxing area. As Mr. Laws pointed out, the very first assessment applied was $72,0^,G an acre, which I think we both agree, was ludicrous. It is our feeling that the proposed acreage assessment currently in effect is equally inappropriate, not only for University Mall, but the o-t'~er small Centers which, if they have accepted, are destined for very severe financisi difficulty if not bankruptcy, and loose their total capacity to accept these charges or any other charges." 5~5 The Tax Supervisor was requested to review the assessment since the discrepancy in footage had been discovered. He was instructed to bring back another recommendation based on his new investigation. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 5 on the Agenda. Item 5: Quarterly Amendments to the Orange County School System Budget: Current Expense: County Appropriation be Increased $223,004.59 Driver's Education Appropriation be Increased 6,682.7.6__ Total $229,687.35 Capital Outlay: County Appropriation Be Increased $ 4,133.49 Names to Fund These Appropriation Increases Should be Transferred From the Refund Account. Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the Orange County School System be authorized to amend its Current Expense Budget in the amount of $229,687.35 and its Capital Outlay Budget in the amount of $4,133.49. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 13 on the Agenda. Stem 13: The County Planning Board Has Acted on theFollowing Matters and Referred them to the Board of Gounty Commissioners for its Consideration. Rezoning Requests Heard at the February 24th Public Hearing. A. Petition of Robert H. Micol to Rezone from Residential to General Commercial Lot ~k46 on Eno Township Tax Map 25. The Planning Board recommends Approval of this Request. Discussion ensued. The Board decided to request that a traffic count be conducted at the intersection of Highway 751 and Highway 70 due to the congestion at certain_periods of the day, and requested further that a 'sketch to scale of the plans of the parking area be submitted. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Board return this matter to the Planning Biard with the specific recommendations that had been requested by the Board of Commissioners. B. Petition of Mr. Proctor to Rezone From Residential to General Commercial Property shown on Chapel Hill ~'ownship Tax Map 127. The Planning Board Recommends Approval of this Request. The Board felt that it should receive some input from the Chapel Hill Board of Alderman and the Chapel Hill Planning Board as this property is located adjacent to their planning jurisdiction. Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that this request be deferred until the Board could meet with the Chapel Hill Board of Alderman in order to review their opinions concerning the safety factor of the proposed rezoning request. C. Petition of the Orange County Board of Commissioners to Rezone Property of Calvin Mellott Shown on Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 18 from Rural Industrial to Residential. The Planning Board Recommends this Petition be Denied. Commissioner Walker moved that the Board approve the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the Petition of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. This motion died for the lack of a second. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Pinney moved that the Board rezone the property of Calvin Mellott that is shown on Chapel Hill Tax Map 127 in Chapel Hill Township from Rural Industrial to Residential. Commissioner Whined seconded the motion. Discussion ensued between the Planning Director, the County Attorney and the Board. Commissioner Gustaveson suggested that the Board defer action on the matter. Further discussion ensued between the County Manager, the Gounty Attorney, the Board and David Ree After being advised by the County Attorney that he could violate some of his rights due to the fact that his Attorney was not present Mr. Reed declined to make any further comments. Commissioner Gustaveson moved that the Board defer action on the matter until there ~ was an opportunity for further discussion concerning the safety and design factors of the project. 506 Commissioner Whitted seconded this motion. Chairman :Garrett states she had two motions on the floor and she requested if i Commissioner Pinney would like to withdraw his motion. Commissioners Pinney and Whitted agreed to the withdrawal of their motion. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on Commissioner Gustaveson's motion. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney and Whitted voted aye. Commissioner Walker voted nay. Chair- man Garrett declared the motion passed. Plats for Consideration. A. Green Hills Subdivsion, Eno Township. The Planning Board recommends approval of this plat provided the actual square Footage of each lot be indicated on the plat. Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was .moved -` and adopted that the Chairman be authorized to sign the certificate of approval for Green Hills Subdivision. B. Orange ABC Board in Eno Township. Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Chairman be authorized to sign the certificate of approval for'the ABC Board plat. Board The County Administrator advised the Board that the County Planning/had on its own motion placed on the Agenda of the next joint Public Hearing, the question of rezoning the present Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Orange County landfill site from Rural Industrial to Residential, and that the landfill site be brought under the newer provision of the County Zoning Ordiaance that require Special Use Eermits prior to opening new sections of the landfill. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 6 on the Agenda. Item 6: Response to the Offer to Se11 the Northside Property made by the Chapel Hill Board of Education. It was agreed that the Board should request the Chapel Hill School Board to have an appraisal made on the Northside School Property and that the County would have its Tax Appraisor's make an appraisal of the property. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 9 on the Agenda. Item 9: The NRrth Carolina Board of Transportation and Highway Safety will hold a series of Public Meetings to receive citizen input prior to updating their Primaxy Highway Improvement Program. - The meeting closest to Orange will be held Monday, April 2l, 1975 at 2:00 p.m. in the Highway Building Auditorium on Wilmington Street in Raleigh. The Board agreed to make a formal request that the Board of Transportation give primary consideration to the upgrading of Highway 4686 South as the traffic on the road is increasing and it is unsafe and hazardous in certain areas. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 10 and the Agenda. Item 10: Consideration of proposal by Joe Matthews to post a Non Cash Performance Bond to Guarantee paving of a subdivision street. The County Attorney advised the Board that he felt it was legally permissable for the County to accept a note and deed of trust in the amount of $25,000.00 from Joe E. Matthews in lieu of .a surety bond. Item 7 was deferxed until April 15, 1975. Chairman Garrett referred to Item 12 on the Agenda. Item 12: A. One vacancy exists on the County Council on the Aging. Mrs. Miranda Mcpherson has resigned. Commissioner Walker placed in nomination the name of Mrs. Lewzs (Mildred) Kennedy to fill the vacancy on the Council on Aging. The Board accepted this nomination. B. The term of Dr. J. Logan Irving on the Orange County Board of Adjust- ments has expired. Commissioner Walker placed in nomination the name of Mrs. Christine Lockhart as a member of the Orange County Board of Adjustments. Commissioner Whitted placed in nomination the name of Dr. J. Logan Irving as a member of the Orange County Board of Adjustments. The nominations were closed. Chairman Garrett called for a vote on the nominations. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney and Whitted voted for Ar. J. Logan Irving. Commissioner Walker voted for Christine Lockhart. Chairman Garrett declard that Dr. Logan Irving was the appointee to the Orange County Board of Adjustments. 5~7 The Board was reminded that they had dinner meetings on Tuesday, April 15th, and on Thursday, April 17th. The County Administrator stated that he had currently four applications for the position of Recreational Director, however, each applicant was interested in knowing something about the type of Budget that could be anticipated for a Recreational Program. Mr. Gattis advised the Board that apparently this was important in the hiring of a Director. Discussion ensued. There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned. ~ ~,~Q a Flora Garrett, Ghairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Tuesday, April 15, 1975 County The Board of/Commissioners of Orange County met in regular session on Tuesday, April 15, 1975, in the Commissioners Room of the County Courthouse in Hillsborough at 8:00 p.m. All members were present. Dr. Cha~3es Martin submitted to the Board of Commissioners a budget for the Orange County Council on the Aging and requested the Board give its tentative approval to this document. This early endorsement is requested iri order that the Regional Council of Governments can file a region wide budget for the Council on the Aging with the State. only Dr. Martin acknowledged this was tentative budget approval/and would not be considerec final until a regular budget approval is made in June. Commissioner Norman Gustaveson offered a motion to give tentative a proval to a '- budget appropriation from Orange County of $31839.00 and endorsement of the Council's total budget of $43,413.00. Commissioner Whitted offered a second. Vote: Ayes 5 Noes 0. Motion declared passed. The Chairman read to the Board of Commissioners a list of four names presented by the County Association of Fire Chiefs in nomination to the newly created County Fire Commission: 1. J. E. Latta 2. Eugene Wilson 3. Wilson Efland 4. Robert Strayhorn Commissioner Jar. Pinney moved the Board of Gommissioners approve this list of nominations by accumulation. Commissioner Richard Whitted offered a second Vote: Ayes 5 Noes 0. Motion declared passed. Chairman Garrett then stated the Board of Commissioners would now consider naming one of its Members to the Fire Commission. Commissioner Norman Gustaveson moved Commissioner Norman Walker be nominated as the Commissioner Fire Commission Member. Commissioner Norman Walker requested the Board of Commissioners delay voting on this motion and allow him to discuss the entire fire commission program with the other members of the Commission before he decides whether or not he would accept the appoint- ' went. The Board agreed to holding this motion open until Commissioner Walker had reached a decision about accepting this position. Chairman Garrett then mentioned some discussion. that had taken place with several fire department chiefs about a County Fire Marshall. In summary the fire chiefs had said that while a County Fire Marshall was needed the chiefs were not willing for funds to finance this position to be taken from special fire district funds. Commissioner Walker stated some areas felt a County Fire Marshall was necessary. ~ A delegation was present to request the Board of Commissioners use its influence with the State Department of Transportation to improve State Highway 86 between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. Representatives of this growp stated they had a petition con- taining 560 or more names requesting this improvemenE be made.