Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1975101489 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 14, 1975 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in adjourned session for the purpose of completing the Agenda from the first Monday's meeting. Members present were Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners Norman Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker and Richard E. Whitted. - Members absent were none. Others present were S. M. Gattis, County Administrator; Neal Evans, Fiscal Officer; A. B. Coleman, Jr., County Attorney; and Betty June Hayes, Clerk to the Board. Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order and it was decided that the Board would open the meeting by considering Item #8 on the Agenda: (Appointments). D--l. Orange County Board of Adjustments - one appointee whose team will expire February 2, 1978. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that Hilliard Caldwell be appointed as a member of the Orange County Board of Adjustments. This term is effective immediately and will expire on February 2, 1978. D-2. Mrs. Jean Anderson, First Alternate, has advised the Planning Department she would like to vacate that position. Her term expires February 6, 1977. Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner ~ Gustaveson, it.was moved and adopted that Dr. Gail Hill of Brigadoon be appointed to replace Jean Anderson, as the First Alternate on the County Board of Adjustments. This term is effective immediately and will expire on February 6, 1977. The Secretary of the Board was instructed to contact Dr. Hill to see if she will agree to serve on the Board of Adjustments. B. Mx. E. Blaine Liner has been granted a leave of absence from the Chapel Hill Planning Board until July 1, 1975. The Chapel Hill Planning Board has recommended Ms. Elizabeth Martin of 1439 Poinsetta Drive as a replacement. Upon motien of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that Ms. Elizabeth Martin be appointed to serve during the leave of absence of E. Blaine Liner on the Chapel Hill Planning Board. E. One vacancy exists on the Durham-Orange Manpower Council. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that Dan zensil be appointed to fill the vacancy that exists on the Durham-Orange Manpower Council. F. The County has been requested to name someone representing emergency medical services providers to its Health Task Force. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted that Lindsey Efland be appointed to represent the Emergency Medical Services providers on the Health Task Force. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #7 on the Agenda: (Title XX Contzacts; Will the County Commissioners retain the power to sign the actual Title XX Contract or will they delegate this function to some other person or agency?) 9~ Tom Ward, the Director of the Social Services Department, explained that the County had the option to delegate another agency or person to sign the Title XX Gontracts or they could retain this authority for themselves. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Gommissioner Walker, it was moved and adopted that the Board designate themselves as the agency to sign all Title XX Contracts. Chairman Garrett then referred to Item #1 on the Agenda: (Facilities Study: On September 23, the Board met with three consultants to con- sider proposals for facilities and/or management studies. Having heard these proposals what does the Board now desire to do?) Chairman Garrett declared that the floor was opened for discussion. Commissioner Walker questioned the present of Joe Nassif. He stated, "Jae is here and the other people are not here." Chairman Garrett replied, gam asked if we ought to invite "At the end of the meeting last week Joe to come." Gommissioner Walker stated he felt the Planning Berard should be asked to study the matter. Gommissioner Gustaveson stated that at previous meetings his understandings of what was needed and what various proposals provided, at least in the Facilities Study, weuestiont tllthinkuthatethataseannt Study which T think is a different q entire different issue altogether. I felt that all three proposals really missed the mark in various respects in terms of what we need at this time. In my final summary, the proposal that seems to come closest, at least to what I understood we needed after the Feasi- bility Study, was the proposal submitted by Nassif. This is where we ended vur discussion on the first Monday. I think this is where we agreed and it was the feeling that we ought to talk further about -- what would be useful in a proposal that would more nearly meet ex- pectations of. the Board. I gather that this is the reason that Mr. Nassif was invited to came. Commissioner Walker replied he felt that all the companies that were represented earlier should have been invited as everybody should be represented. Commissioner Gustaveson stated he felt that the other two groups had missed the point on the facility study th=tdoenotdf~eletheylhave statements to make on the Management Study. the technical capacity to do what we need at this point. I think it is useless to invite them back because they der not have what is needed at this poina~ fareasfthesManagementfStudytisrconcern~y are still in the running Chairman Garrett stated, "I think Mr. Gattis invited Idr. Nassif on the basis of what he was hearing from the Board at our last meeting. Several members had express the need that we must get on with Grady Brown and that technical information was what we needed. «hatraeo$ala" is architectural and engineering analysis. I am open to any p p Commissioner Pinney stated, "it was certainly one of my thouiatin that we have to ,do something with Grady Brawn. We cannot keep p Y g around with it. Mr. Nassif has the architectural and engineering skills in order to do the kind of studies as far as the building needs. We need to get moving. Commissioner Gustaveson stated that if the Board wanted to go through and call the others back it would be fine with him. "If you think they have thetQChnical capacity to do what is needed." Commissioner Walker stated thatnone of the consultants are going to do anything except what we tell them to do. "We've got a Planning Department to help us do it. What expertise they do not have they can notify us and let us know what direction we need to take." Further Discussion ensued. 9~ Chairman Garrett stated, "What I would like to do is to have some- one prepare something that would have the information available to us so that we could be able to make some decision concerning the jail, whether to appropriate money in the next budget, or whether it is through a bond issue. X would like to have some alternatives given to us through some kind of a consultant arrangement such as where do we put the jail; what are the best reasons why it should be put here or built onto the Courthouse; the approximate cost so that we could actually and seriously begin thinking about a jail. I think the same thing about Grady Brown. I would like to have enough technical inforrmation so that we might move the Departments into there. I feel that we must know about the wiring, boiler and things of this nature. The Library needs to be looked into. I just feel. that we need enough alternatives in order to reach a proper decision." Commissioner Gustaveson stated that there was one important point. We do have a set of problems here and they are all interrelated. He said, "I do not think that any of us can look at just one item because they are all related. This is where we need some kind of Facilities Study in order to get some sense of how departments are operating and what their needs are going to be in the next few years. We need to know how the~jail relates to the Court system; how the jail be being used now, and the Sheriff's Department, far I feel that we must have this knowledge in order to plan adequately for a new jail. Then we will have some sense of how to build it; you can't talk.. about Grady Brown unless you talk about the jail and you can't talk about the Library unless you talk about these other things and then we must determine how wer are going to finance. I am of the opinion that we will probably end up having to talk about a bond issue and it seems to me that if we are going to balk about a bond issue it doesn't make sense to go for money strictly for a jail when we may have $600,000. to $70D,000. dollars that we need to apply for the renovation of Grady Brown. We should have a cost estimate on all our facility needs at one time and go with one bond issue to take care of these needs. We must also remember the School Capital Outlay needs. We need this as a package for one presentation. We need someone who can look at the problem and help us sort out how to begin to solve these problems, all of this essentially, is what I see a consultant doing, and I guess this is where I really disagree with ' the proposal that was made. I had hoped that more focus would be placed on the Facilities aspect and more would be placed on the specification about cost." Commissioner Whitted spoke to the proposal of moving offices that had been submitted by Commissioner Pinney. He stated that to make Grady Brown useable it was going to cost same money. He stated that we must consider how much money it is going to take to do "this and that" and T don't see where we have that money unless we know how much money we are talking about. Commissioner Pinney replied'tahat I have said all along was that we were going to have tp send someone in there to do the architectural, engineering and feasibility study, but you can not wait until the whole package is put together because I just do not believe that we are going to have anything to work with up there. I feel we can send an architect in and within a very short period of time we can secure an idea of how we can use Grady Brown. What it will take to fix the electrical system; whether the floors will hold the weight of the books for the library; whether the heating system must have a new boiler and continue in this way to see what is needed to make this building useable. I feel that we are going to have to take some steps on Grady Brown immediately and get somebody in order to stop the building from being vandalized." Commissioner Walker stated that he felt it had already been es- tablished that the building was sound. He referred to the report that had been received by the Board from Mr. Llassif. Further discussion ensued concerning the Grady Brown Buildings. Chairman Garrett stated that she shared some of Commissioner Pinney's views and that it might be possible to have the consultant work on Grady Brown first, but the Board must still look at who was going in there and why and who to move on a temporary or permanent basis. Commissioner Walker reminded the Board that all of the consultants had stated that you could not adequately plan for more than a five year period. Further discussion ensued. Chairman Garrett stated that she felt that the thing that should be brought out was whether or not the proposals needed to be rewritten and what would be in that proposal. "For 2 hear Norm saying one thing, z have a slightly different opinion in my mind and the others of you may hold different ideas so let's see if we can get together. My feeling is that 2 would like a limited Facilities Study." Discussion ensued. Commissioner Whitted suggested that since Mr. Nassif was invited then it would appear appropriate to hear his comments since he had heard the views of each Board member. The Board asked Mr. Nassif to speak. Tom Ward, Social Services Director, requested the Board to con- sider the approval of some forms that he needed signed by the next day. He stated that his department must file a proposal for a contract for each. of the agencies that were making application. for Title XX funds. He explained that the Board must certify that the program is not a duplicate of existing services and will mesh with the service delivery system in the County and this is a certification of public funds. In this case, what has been allocated plus a $1,078. dollars, in addition to the $4,000.00 earmarked for the Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action Agency for Legal Services. Discussion ensued whether or not a formal request had been made by Mr. Wic~¢er to the Board for these funds. The Board declined to sign the application. The Chairman of the Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action Board was present and she did sign the ,application. Mr. Ward requested the Board to sign an application for the Council on Aging since there was no question about this money. Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Chairman be authorized to sign the Council on aging application. Chairman Garrett then recognized Joe Nassif. Mr. Nassif reviewed the report that he had previously made concerning the structural sound- , ness of the Grady Brown School Building. He stated that the Board must consider what they want to do with the structure and he proceeded to detail various alternatives and/or choices that the Board must consider. Discussion ensued between members of the Board and Mr. Nassif. Commissioner Pinney moved that the. Board hire Mr. Nassif to make an engineering and architectual study of the Grady Brown 5chaol only. Then the Board can decide what they want in a Facilities 5.tudy about each County Building and space. Then the Board can invite all three consultants back and present to them a definite proposal of what is expected. This motion died far lack of a second. Further discussion ensued as to the desires of each Board member concerning the study. Commissioner Pinney moved that the Board authorize Mr. Nassif to do an architectual study of the Grady Brown School buildings and then ' the Board would instruct Mr. Nassif as to what was desired on the re' mainder of the study that needs to be done on the Courthouse space and then after that is completed, the Board will consider the other areas of need such as'the jail, library, etc. Chairman Garrett questioned the contents of the motion as to whether or not it should be separated in order that the Board might consider each proposal. Commissioner Whitted seconded the motion. Discussion ensued con- cerning the fee that would be charged far the study. Commissioner Pinney and Commissioner Whitted agreed to amend their original motion to state that the contract for the architectual and engineering study woull be placed out for bids to architects in grange County. Mrs. Garrett called for the vote. Commissioner Pinney, Walker and Whitted voted aye. Commissioner Garrett and Gustaveson voted nay. The Chairman declared the motion passed. ~` 93 Discussion ensued concerning the intent of Commissioner Finney's motion. The County Manager stated that perhaps Mr. Nassif would assist in the clarification of the proposal when it was prepared for the bids process. Chairman Garrett stated that the next part was to consider the Management Study. Commissioner Pinney moved that this item be deferred until a latex date. Commissioner Walker seconded this motion. Chairman Garrett called for the vote. Commissioners Gustaveson, Pinney, and Walker voted aye. Commissioner Garrett and Commissioner Whitted voted nay. Chairman Garrett declared the motion passed. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #5 on the Agenda: (A Charge to the Eno River Park Task Force - Commissioner Norman Gustaveson has pro- posed a charge for the Eno River Task Force and he provided each member with a copy of the charge at-the October 6th meeting. Commissioner Gustaveson presented the "Guidelines for the Eno River Task Force." He proceeded to review the guidelines and certain changes were suggested. "In view of the prevailing concern in Orange County far the preservation of the Eno River, the County Commissioners of Orange County have resolved as of September 16, 1975, to create a task force to study ways and means for perserving the Eno River in Orange County. This task force shall consist of five members from Orange County and one chairman from Orange County. Each County Commis- sioner shall name one member. The Commissioners together shall elect a sixth member whe shall be chairman of the task force. The Chairman shall, determine the rules by which the task force shall be governed. Each member of the task force shall have a vote, including the chairman. Replacement for vacancies on the task force shall be made by a joint decision of the County Commissioners. The task force shall also assure means for adequate citizen input during the period of study. It should also consult appropriate local and State governmental bodies for information and data as needed. The task force can appoint voluntary professional staff assist- once as needed. The task force may be askdd by the County Board of Commissioners to clarify particular issues that might arise during this period of study. It will be the responsibility of the task force to provide to the Commissioners a clear statement of the facts relating to issues that might arise. The task force may add additional items to this charge as the work progresses if it is deemed necessary and appropriate to the general content of this charge. The task force shall take four months to study ways and means to perserve the Eno River in Orange County, and shall submit a final report in four months time. At this time, should the views of the task force not be unanimous, a minority report as well as a concensus report may be submitted. The final report to the Commissioners should address not only questions of fact and background information, but also in their best judgment recommend guidelines for policy on this matter. of the task force shall.be duly considered e County be binding upon The recommendations Commissioners but shall no by the Orang both them- of the variassafna~uralsresource Ater coming to an understanding River has t0 an understanding actual and potential, which the Eno of Orange County, and after cominer the river in for the.peoPle otential hazards that endang answering of the present and P force shall address itselother related Orange County, the task as well as the following interrelated questions, questions: Orange County River and its enviroT~ver and its environs l) Should the Eno went of theer etuity? or some significant seg in Orange County be preserved in p P practical and effe~ficant 2) cansthebEnohRlvern~ a~~ts en~~ or same signi e County with its environs, be segment of it~in Orang preserved in perpetuity? ratection? 3) What powers are available to enforce teen used by the 4) Since the Eno River through time has b natural resource, both for tilitarian and public as a and since pubs-~-c intrusion upon ur oses, id opula- recreational p P, in proportion to thee C°untyp haw the river is growing lace in Orang Lion expansion now taking P river which ublic be guaranteed access to the can the p°rderly? shall be b what the river, Y 5) Given this growing public use Of can the river and agency or means public or private. • s environs be maintained, patr°lled and controlled? it ublic parklands be established. 6) decided that p iven and what steps can be Tf it is to implement what incentives can be g Orange County taken by the Government of the preservation of the river? arding uestians and others reg it is expected that the task ect: Tn its deliberafithe EnorRivere q aspects of its sub? the preservation ° following force shall take cognizance of the Orange County as well se along the Eno in future; - present land u ossibilities for the arklands; as land use plans and p e County of establishing p uences to Orang a County both intangrb1e and tax conseq to.Orang _ benefits accruing arklands: ned open spaces in monetary °f establishing p of existing parklands and desig a survey Orange County; of p°pulation projections for Orange en space requirements an understanding rowth; County and the recreational aro epted g ounty between needed to accommodate that p J to the C difference in cosmanaged parklands; - an estimate of the County State operated parklands and County larger an understanding of the interrelation between Orange ace and recreational needs and those of the °pen:sp ion and the State; Third Triangle J reg directives of the - the need tor~ap~ the Counciltof State Goals and Policy. Annual Rep 1974." was present. Chairman of the Eno River Task FoXCe~was looking B. g, Olive, and stated that he ge re- Mr. Olive accepted the Chairmanship the Task Farce memberask Force forward to working with the Board and a oint o~e aDiscussion ensuedtreg riling the quested the Board an dd numbs uest for an additional so there would be request. Mr. Olive then withdrew the reg member to the Task Force. 9~ ... _...... Mrs. Garrett stated that Cashe Boggs, County Dog Warden, was present and inquired if the Board would agree to defer from the Agenda in order to talk with Mr. Boggs abeut the dog pound situation. The Board did so agree and the Chairman recognized Mr, Boggs, The Dog Warden reviewed the condition of the present dog pound. He stated that the conditions could not be improved due to the fact that the pound facility was not adequate for proper housing and/or for the separating of the animals. Mr. Boggs then reviewed the statutes and the routine that must be followed by the Dog Warden and his assistant: The Board inquired if he felt anything could be done to improve the current facility. He replied "no", Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Walker moved that the County construct a dog pound _~ on the 20 acre site that had recently been purchased from Mr. Crabtree. This motion died for the lack of a second. The Board agreed to defer Item #6: (Will the County send on mem- ber of its Energy Conservation Task Fore to a Nationwaide Conference in Atlanta?) This item will be discussed at the October 21 meeting. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ~~~~ ~ Flora R. Garrett, Chairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 21, 1975 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 21, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., in the Commissioners' Room at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, Members present were Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners Norm Gustaveson, Jan Pinney, Norman Walker, and Richard E. Whitted. Members absent: None. Others present were S. M. Gattis, County Administrator; Neal Evans, Fiscal Officer; A. B. Coleman, Jr., County Attorney; and Betty June Hayes, Clerk to the Board Chairman Garrett explained that for health planning purposes and due to a new Federal Law, Regions J and K are being combined. It will be necessary to hold a Public Hearing for the purpose of selecting persons from Orange County who will serve on the Health Service Board. Orange County has been allocated five members. The Convener Group will meet on October 29th and need to have the appointments from Orange County by that date, The Board agreed to hold the Public Hearing pn Tuesday, October 2$th, at 7:30 p.m., in the Commissioners' Raom. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #1 on the Agenda: (Recognition of persons present and not on this Agenda desiring to speak with the Board). Na one came forth. Chairman Garrett referred to Item #2 on the Agenda: (Minutes of prior meetings). Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted, it was moved and adopted that this item be deferred. to hearepublicmcommentsron propos~d#CountyhwideeSedimentbControlrOrdi This hearing will be conducted in the County Commissioners' Room, Hance.