Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19750902~~ Roland Scott stated that it was his understanding that the meeting tonight was to be a general discussion. To hear the consensus as to whether or not the School Board should procede with a plan to present to the Board of Commissioners. Following discussion the Chairman stated that the consensus of the Board of Commissioners was that the School Board should submit a planned budget, itemizing the needs that could be $nanced by a special election and/or a tax supplement, and that the matter of what legal steps had to be pursued prior to the calling of an election. The Boards must decide how the question would be presented to. the Public on the ballot. The Commissioners feels that the items required must be decided prior to reaching any definite decision on the request from the Orange County Board of Education to call a special election. It was agreed that the matter should be deferred until the full Board could be present. Mr. Scott inquired of the Board as to the county's plans for the Grady Brown School property. Discussion ensued. The County Manager reported that the County was in the process of having a consultant firm make a Space and Feasibility study. Mr. Williams requested the Board to submit a formal proposal on the Grady Brown School property to the School Board at the earliest con- . venient date. He stated that the Insurance on the buildings was due as of October 1, 1975, and the School Board did not wish to continue the expense of insurance. ~~~. ~ Flora R. Garrett, Chairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk MINUTES ORANGE COUNTX BOARD OF CQ_MMISSIONERS September 2, 1975 The Orange County Boarci of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 2, 1975, a+~ 10:OQ a. m. in the Commissioners' Room at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, ~~, r, r•4embers present were: Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners Norman ^nstaveson, Jan Pinney, raorman rTalk_er and Richard E. FThitted. ^~'.enbers absent: ~7one. Others present were: S. M. Gattis, County Manager; `]eal Evans, Fiscal Officer; Mark Burnham from the Triangle J Council of Governments; and Agatha Johnson, Acting Clerk. A. B. Coleman, Jr. and Steve Berr_holz, County Attorneys, attended a portion of the afternoon session. Chairman Garrett referred to Item ~`1 on the Agenda: (Recognition of persons present and not on the Agenda desiring to speak with the Board.) No one came forth. Chairman Garrett referred to Item (;2 on the Agenda: (DYinutes of prior ameetings) . The Board reviewed the Minutes of the August 11, 1975 meeting and the Chairman declared the Minutes approved as presented. The Board reviewed the Minutes of the August 12, 1975 meeting and recommended a change on page 3 regarding the Commissioner's cheice of priorities for allocation of funds for the Title XX program. 51 Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the Minutes of August 12, 1975, be approved. The Minutes of August 14, 1975, were reviewed and upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Finney, it was moved and adopted that the Minutes of August 14, 1975, be approved. The Minutes of the August 19, 1975, meeting were reviewed by the Board. The Clerk was advised to add to page 12 a reference regarding the scheduled Public Hearing for a proposed Maintenance Garage. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the Minutes of August 19, 1975, be approved. The Minutes of the August 25, 1975, meeting were reviewed. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Minutes of August 25, 1975, be approved. The Board deferred from the Agenda briefly to determine where on the Agenda Item # 15-C should appear. Mrs. Garrett stated that the County Attorney would not be in the meeting until after the Court Calendar Ca11 and that she had told citizens that Item # 15-C would not be discussed until after lunch. Commissioner Walker stated that he had asked the County Manager to move Item # 15-C up on the Agenda to be presented as Item #3-D, and that all the Appointments should, in his opinion, be discussed at the same time. Following discussion, the Board agreed to hear all Appointments after the lunch period. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #6 on the Agenda: (Commissioner Richard Whitted to make a brief report of actions taken by the Audit Committee . ) Commissioner Whitted read a letter to the Board received from John W. Kee of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company regarding a meeting held on August 4, 1975, to discuss the current audit and problems dis- covered in the June 30, 1975 examination. Mr. Whitted discussed the recording of revenues on the gash basis versus the accrual basis. He informed the Board that the Auditors recommended that revenues be re~ corded on the accrual basis when measurable and available. However, if the County elected not to record items on an accrual basis, the Auditors would make an exception in their report. Commissioner Whitted stated further that it was the contention of the N. C. Local Government Commission that revenues should be on a cash basis because of budget- ary restraints. Commissioner Whitted advised the Board that it was the Audit Committee's decision as well as the advise of the County Manager and the Finance Director that the County continue on a cash basis for 1974-1975. Commissioner Whitted discussed Ttem (b): Taxes Receivable of the Fire and School District. He stated that since the Fire and School Taxes received are fully reserved and have no effect on fund balance it was decided to continue recording these receivariles in the General Fund. It was also decided to exclude the value of Orange County School Buildings. However, the Fiscal Officer stated that should there be a bond issue, the County would have to show the real value of these Buildings. The. Fiscal Officer advised the Board that the Local Government - Commissi.oner has stated that Fire Districts are not required to have an audit since they are not public authorities. A formal presentation of the current audit will be ready by the end of September, 1975. Chairman Garrett referred to Ttem # 4 on the Agenda: (Public Hear- ing to be held at 10:30 a. m.). The Staff has proposed the County acquire approximately three acres of land on the east side of N. C. Hwy. #57 from A. H. Walker, Jr. This land is proposed as the site for a County vehicle maintenance facility. Parcel 5, Block B in Hillsborough Township, Tax Map #5, is located about 1,600 feet north of theintersection of State Hwys #57 and 86. Chairman Garrett recognized Johnny Horner, an employee of the County, who presented a presentation from the Staff regarding the proposed vehicle maintenance facility. He presented a drawing of the proposed building which he stated would be 50 feet by 100 feet and approximately 20 feet in height. He stated that the building would have expandable walls for adding more space. He stated further that the building, in his opinion, would not be seen from the highway as the trees on the property would serve as a buffer area. Chairman Garrett asked if anyone was present who would like to speak in opposition to the proposed maintenance garage. Mr. J. Edmond Latta presented to the Board a petition signed by thirty-eight citizens rho opposed the construction of the garage on this particular site. Mr. Latta stated that he had not learned of the issue until Friday and that he did not feel it was necessary to build this facility in that neighborhood. He requested the Board to seek some other place for the building. Mr. Claiborn Wilkerson spoke in opposition to the proposed garage site. He stated that he and his two sons owned property in that area and that a subdivision was now underway for 70 acres of that land and this would be a sore eye in the midst of his property. He stated further, that in his opinion, a building could not be situated on that property and that two and one-half acres of land was not sufficient space for the proposed garage. He suggested that the County look for a site with at least 5 to 10 acres included. Mrs. J. Edmond Latta spoke in opposition to the proposed facility and ask "why didn't the citizens of the County know more about the proposed garage?" Rev. William Richardson stated that he was present to represent some members of his congregation who were opposed to the proposed build- ing site, but were unable to attend this public hearing. Rev. Richardson requested that the Board might schedule an open meeting in order that more citizens might voice their opposition to the proposed maintenance garage. Discussion ensued between members of the board, the Staff and the citizens present. The Board agreed that the County should look for a larger site on which to construct the proposed garage even if it was necessary to pur- chase land in a commercially zoned area. Chairman Garrett assured those present that no definite action had been made regarding the purchase of the land. Commissioner Pinney suggested that arrangements be made foz the drivers of the refuse collection trucks to provide a facility for wash- ing the trucks in cold weather. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #5 on the Agenda: (The Board of County Commissioners to hear complaints concerning tax assessments from citizens.) Chairman Garrett recognized William Laws, Tax Supervisor, who re- _. ferred to Item A. May W. Carmichael appealing the assessment on a tract situated in Chapel Hill Township and shown an Tax Map 62 as Parcel 2, Block ~. Mr. Laws recognized ~Tr. F. J. T.~alker, Attorney, who was repre- senting Ms. Carmichael. Mr. Walker stated that he was protesting the evaluation of the Carmichael land and house which had been raised from $67,000. to $86,000. as the house had few of today's modern conveniences. He stated that the house was 35 years old and compared the Carmichael home with surrounding homes. The Board inquired of Mx. Laws as to how the house could be graded in the A-plus category with these deficiencies. Mr. Laws replied that the house should not be graded in this category. 52 53 Upon motion, of Commissioner Norman Walker, seconded by Commissioner Whined, it was moved and adopted that the Hoard accept the recommenda- tien of the Tax Supervisor to reduce the value of the Carmichael land and house to $64.,900.00. H. Jefferson Rainey appealing the assessment on a tract situated in Chapel Hill Township and .shown on Tax Map 8 as Parcel 3-A,H1ock B. Mr. Rainey did not appear. C. George Tate, Jr., appealing the assessment on three tracts in Chapel Hill Township. Mr. Tate spoke of Parcel 85-L-33.. He stated ~, that this was a vacant lot and that he had purchased the property three years ago at a price of $16,000.00 He stated further that the property, in his opinion, was overpraised by $13,000.00 or more. This land was assessed by the Tax Office at $36,600.00. Parcel listed as 85-L-32, Mr. Tate stated that a portion of this building was used for storage and that the property was located in a Black neighborhood. 85-L-32 had been assessed by the Tax Office at $33,700.00. ..., The Board of Commissioners took no action on these two matters but requested the Tax Supervisor to study these matters further and to make recommendations to the Board. Mr. Tate referred to parcel listed as 23-D-11A which has a Duke Power line running through the property. This land is located on Purefoy Road. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, the Board voted unanimously to accept the recommendation of the Tax Supervisor and reduce the assessment for 23-D-11A from $2,100.00 to $1,000.00 Mr. Tate spoke in behalf of R. A. Butler who owns property listed as 92-A-22 and 92-A-23 in Chapel Hill Township. He informed the Board that 92-A-22 was a junk yard and 92-A-23 was a garage area. The 1975 assessment for 92-A-22 was $40.,000.00. The Tax Supervisor's recommenda- tion was that this property be reduced to $11,400.00. The 1975 assess- ment for parcel 92-A-23 was $17,300.00. The Tax Supervisor recommended that Parcel 92-A'23 not be reduced but increased to $17,500.00. Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the Board accept. the recom- mendations of the Tax Supervisor for Parcels 92-A-22 and 92-A-23. Mr. Laws stated that he had three refunds for the J.H.H. Corporation for the Board's approval due to double listings. Shepherd Story - Tract #7986 in Hillsborough Township, a'refund in the amount of $20.43. Upan motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the County refund $20.43 to the J.H.H. Corporation. American-Marietta - Tract #2605 in Eno Township, a refund in the amount of $12.20. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the County refund $12.20 to the J.H.H. Corporation. Marshall Baker - Tract #2602 in Eno Township, a refund in the amount of $59.00. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whined, it was moved and adapted, that the County refund $59.00 to J. H. H. Company. Mr. Laws presented a tax refund request from Mr. George Dusenbury for Tract #56355 in Chapel Hill Township. A refund was requested due to a clerical error in the incorrect square footage. The refund is in the amount of $134.91. 54 Upon motion of Commissioner Finney, seconded By Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the County refund to Mr. Dusenbury the amount of $134.91, Chairman Garrett referred to Item #9 on the Agenda; (Consideration of request made by Honorable Stanley Pee1e to allow a suitable picture of L. J. Phipps to be hung in the f~range County Superior Courtroom.) Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, it was moved that the Board approve the request. Commissioner Walker seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Gustaveson asked if there was I any criteria required, that he could foresee many people wantzng to do the same thing. Commissioner Walker stated that this was the first occasion to his knowledge of any such request. Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Vote: Aye 5: Nay 0. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. The Clerk was instructed to write a letter to Judge Peele informing him of the•Board's approval. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #14 on the Agenda: (Plats from the County Planning Board). A. Ben Thompson: Mr. Thompson proposes to divide a single parcel into two smaller ones. The property is situated west of old Highway 86 and South of State Road #1129 (Davis Road). The Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Chairman Garrett recognized Irvin Dobson, Planning Director, and Chris Edwards, Assistant Planning Director. Mr. Edwards presented a i tax map and plat of P+lr. Thompson's property to the Board. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Walker, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the Thompson plat. B. Wallace Duncan: Mr. Duncan proposed to divide a tract of slightly more than two acres into two parcels of slightly more than one acre each. This property lies north of Homestead Road and west of Rogers Road. The Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whined, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the plat of Mr. Wallace. C- Carolina Forest Phase I2: This parcel, in Chapel Hill Township, is situated south of Jones Ferry Road and west of Damascus Church Road. It consist of seventeen lots, the smallest of which is four acres in size. The Planning Board recommends this plat he approved. Mr. Edwards stated that the owner is to extend the already paved road. The Health Department sees no problem with this land and that Restrictive Covenants are to be drawn. Mr. Dobson added that one technical problem was the length of the cul-de-sac. Upon motion of commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the Prelimin- ary Prat far Carolina Forest Phase II. D. Price Creek PUD: This property was rezoned to PUD August 5, 1974. It is situated south of Damascus Church Road and consist of four housing units clustered together surrounded by a large common area. The Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Mr. Edwards stated that perk tests have been successful an all lots and that the Health Department has issued permits. 55 Upon motion of commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the prelim- nary plat for Price Creek PUD. E. Mrs. Lula Maddry and Mrs. Anne Edwards: This property is situated north of Homestead Road and east of the Southern Rail- way. It accomplishes the subdivision of a larger tract into two parcels with access to be provided the parcel not fronting along the road through a deeded sixty foot easement.. The Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Mr. Edwards advised the Board that the easement would be an extension of the property. Upon motion of Commissioners Jan Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the Final Plat of Mrs. Maddry and Mrs. Edwards. F. Carl B. Sparrow: This property, in Chapel Hill Township, is situated south of Farrington Road. It is comprised of two par- cels. Access to the rear parcel is provided through a twenty foot drive which is a part of the back lot. The Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Upon motion of Commissioner Jan Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the Final Plat of Carl B. Sparrow. G. Cedar Hills: This property situated south of Weaver Dairy Read consist of seventy-three lots on ninety-one acres. Some plat changes have been made since this plat was last before the Board of Commissioners.. These changes were made to conform with the sugges- tions offered by the Chapel Hill Planning Board. The Orange County Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Chris Edwards presented the following documents to the Board of Commissioners: A letter from Chapel Hill Planning Department; Perk test results; Highway Department Sixty Day Review Result; A letter from the University of N. C.; A letter from the State Department; and an Erosion Control Plan. Mr. Edwards stated that two additional recommendations had been made by the Chapel Hi11 Planning Department. (1) the Planning Department recommended a change in wording on the plat and (2) a thirty feet pedestrian easement be provided between Lots # 25 and 2fi. The Board of Commissioners did not accept recommendation number two. Upon motion of Norman Walker, seconded by Jan Finney, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the plat of Cedar Hills. H. Northwood: This plat consists of fourteen lots west of N. C. #$6 and south of Eubanks Road. The. Planning Board recommends this plat be approved. Mr. Edwards filed with the Board a list of recommendations by the Chapel Hill Planning Department and a letter from W. E. Billingsley, University of N. C. Utilities Distribution Superintendent. Mr. Edwards stated that'the Planning Board approved this plat before receiving the above mentioned recommendations and that the Developer has not had an opportunity to comment on the recommendations. He provided the Board with the Perk Profile of North woad Subdivision. Mr: Mellott, Developer of Northwood Subdivision, reviewed briefly the recommendations submitted from Chapel Hill and discussion ensued. Mr. Pinney asked Mr. Mellott if at the end of Phase I, when University water is available will Mellott connect to the University? Mr. Mellott replied that he has installed his water system on the basis of thepreliminary approval, that he had received no cooperation from Chapel Hill. The water system had been a project within itself and has now been completed. ~~ Chairman Garrett stated that the University had requested the Board to delay approval of this plat and that according to the per}: results "some of the holes don't perk." Motion was made by Commissioner Walker to accept the Planning Board's recommendation. Further discussa.on ensued. Commissioner Pinney seconded Commissioner Walker°s motion. Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Commissioner Gustaveson, Pinney, Walker and Whitted voted aye. Commissioner Garrett voted nay. The motion was declared passed. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #3--A on the Agenda: One vancancy exist on the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment as Alan Stiven caho resides on Mears Road is no longer eligible to serve. Mr. Stiven's term expires June 30, 1977. , Chairman Garrett inquired of the Board if there were any nominations to the Chapel I3i11 Board of Adjustment. It was suggested from the Board that the County Manager write the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment and the Chapel Hill Planning Board and ask for a letter of recommendation for appointees to these two Hoards. The County Manager was sc instructed. B. One vacancy will soon exist on the Hoard of Directors of the Triangle Housing Development Corporation as the term of Howard ;4elch will expire at the end of September. The term of office is one year. The annual meeting of this corporation is held during October. The County Manager was requested to contact Mr. Welch to see if he would consider being reappointed to this Board. C. Three appointments should be made to the committee studing city-county cooperation. The Study Committee suggests one Commissioner, one Staff person and one interested citizen be named to this group. An organizational meeting of this group is contemplated during September. Commissioner Gustaveson volunteered to serve as the Commissioner on this Study Committee. Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that Commissioner Gustaveson be named to the Study Committee. Neal Evans, Orange County Fiscal Officer, was the appointee from the Staff. I•irs. Garrett stated that she had two nominations of interested citizens, DSr. Sim Efland and Dlr. Ira Ward. Commissioner'Whitted sug- gested that Mr. Efland be contacted to see if he would serve on this Study Board. The County Manager was requested to contact Mr. Efland. Due to the 3:00 p.m. deadline., the Eoard voted ur_animously to extend the meeting to 3:15 p.m. D. The Attorney General had advised the State Department of Social Services (The Orange County Board of Social Services) that the Orange County Board of Social Services should: 1. Request the Orange County Commissioners to make a new appoint- . ment to the County Board of Social Services to take the place of I3s. Mae 2cLendon; ar 2. Request the Attorney General designate someone an his staff to advise and represent the Orange County Board of Social Services in any matters relating to the appointment of Ms. Mae McLendon to the Orange County Hoard of Social Services; or 3. Request the Orange County Board of Commissioners appropriate funds to hire private counsel to represent the Orange Ccunty Board of Social Services in any matters relating to the appointment of Ms. Mae McLendon to the Orange County Board of Social Services. 5'7 .. Commissioner Walker referred to a letter address to the Board of Social Services from the Attorney General's office. The letter re- quested the Board of Commissioners to decide on ane of the three afore- mentioned requests that appear on the Agenda. Chairman Garrett stated that since an appointment had been made to the Social Services Board, now the Board of Commissioners should decide what action to take relative to the legality question involved and to be provided with further legal background. Commissioner Walker inquired of the Board as to what the next step should be. Mr. Coleman stated that the Attorney General's office should pro- vide a comprehensive argument about the appointee. "We should prompt them as to whether or not our opinion was sound." He'stated that it could be that the County Commissioners could be convinced that their opinion was wrong or the Attorney General's office could be convinced that their opinion was wrong. Commissioner Walker stated, "the County has spend time and money on this matter and feel it's time to move along." He stated that the Board was eating a dead horse." Chairman Garrett stated that this is a very important issue. "We are dealing with one of the highest personal rights - freedom to participate." Commissioner Pinney inquired about the $15,000.00 request from the Social Services Department? "Should we be spending this money fight- ing Constitution problems or helping people?" Commissioner Whitted moved that the County Commissioners ask the County Attorneys to do a comprehensive study of the issue. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker stated that the Social Service Board had been _' directed by the Attorney General's office to take action on one of the three request and if the Board decided to pursue the matter further they should appropriate funds for the Social Services Board to appoint legal counsel. Commissioner Whitted stated that he did not feel the Social Services Board needed legal counsel. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he agreed with Mrs. Garrett in that the Board was dealing with an individual's right to participate in Government. He inquired as to why the Board of Commissioners had not been furnished with the correspondence received from the Attorney General's office. Mr. Walker was requested to send the referred to correspondence to members of the Board. Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Commissioner Garrett, Gustaveson and Whitted voted aye. Commissioners Pinney and Walker voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Commissioner Walker requested that the Fiscal Officer and the County Attorney prepare a statement of money already spent on the matter. Other members of the Board stated that they had no objection to this request. Commissioner Walker then moved that the Board appoint an attorney to represent the Board of Social Services. fan Pinney seconded the motion. ss Discussion followed. Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Voting nay were Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson and Whitted. Voting aye were Commissioners Pinney and Walker. The motion was declared failed. Commissioner Walker made a motion that the Board request the Attorney General's office to designate and advise the Orange County Social Services Board in matters relating to the appointment of.Ms. McLendon. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pinney. Commissioners Gustavson then moved that the Commissioners table the matter until the members of the Board had received all correspon-- dence from the Attorney General's office. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney and Whitted voted aye. Commissioner Walker voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. The Board decided to meet again on September 11, 1975, to finish items on the Agenda not completed at this meeting. The County Attorney was requested to report to the Board at this time regarding his findings of the McLendon matter. The Board was then adjourned. -- ~,~...C~. ~ Flora R. Garrett, Chairman Agatha Johnson, Acting Clerk ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF GOMNIISSIONERS September 11, 1975 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in adjourned session on Thursday, September 11, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., in the Commissioners' Room, at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, N. C. Members present were Commissioners Flora Garrett; Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker and Richard E. ~+lhitted. Niembers absent were none. S. Ni. Gattis, County Manager; Neal Evans, Fiscal Officer; A. B. Coleman, Jr.,County Attorney; and .Agatha Johnson, Acting Clerk, were also present. Chairman Garrett referred to Item ~1 on the Agenda: (Recognition of persons present and not on the Agenda desiring to speak with the Board.) Since no one came forth to speak, Chairman Garrett referred to Item # 2 on the Agenda: (Aiinutes of prior Meetings).