HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 19751103iQ~
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
November 3, 1975
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday,
November 3; 1975, at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners Room at the Gourthouse in
Hillsborough.
Members present were Chairman Flora Garrett, Commissioners Norman Gustaveson,
Jan Pinney, Norman Walker, and Richard E. Whined.
Members absent was none.
Others present were S. M- Gattis, County Administrator; Neal Evans, Fiscal
Officer; A. $. Coleman, Jr., County Attorney and Betty June Hayes, Clerk.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item 4I1 on the Agenda: Recognition of person
present and not on the Agenda desiring to speak with the Board.
Chairman Garrett recognized Millard Whitley who filed a petition for SR ~~1948
with the Board.
Discussion ensued concerning the request.
Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was
moved and adopted that the Clerk forward the petition to the Department of Trans-
portation with an accompanying letter of endorsement.
The Chairman referred to Item ~~2: Minutes of Previous Meetings.
The minutes of the October 6, 1975 meeting were reviewed and corrections
recommended.
Open motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whined, it was
moved and adopted to approve the October 6, 1975 minutes.
The minutes of the October 9, 1975 meeting were reviewed and Upon motion of
Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Walker and Gustaveson, it was moved
and adopted that the October 9, 1975 minutes be approved
The minutes of the October 14, 1975 meeting were reviewed.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Wliitted, it was
moved and adopted that the minutes of the October 14, 1975 meeting be approved.
The minutes of the October 21, 1975 meeting were reviewed and upon motion
of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Gustaveson, it was moved and
adopted that the minutes of the October 21, 1975 meeting be approved.
The minutes of the October 28, 1975 meeting were reviewed and upon motion of
Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted to
approve the October 2$, 1975 minutes subject to certain corrections.
The Chairman referred to Item ~~3 on the Agenda: The Board of Commissioners
agreed at the public hearing on October 28 to receive additional recommendations
of nominees for alternate members to the Regional Health Services $oard.
Chairman Garrett stated that Betty Compton and Dr. William Cromarties
had advised her that the names which the Board had previously considered for
appointment to the Health Systems Bgard were basically persons who ,would be
be considered in the provider group and that in order to equate the committee
individuals from the consumer group should be nominated.
Commissioner Walker nominated William Breeze; Commissioner Pinney nominated
all the names previously submitted by the Board; Commissioner Whitted nominated
Mrs. DeLacy Parker. 'The Board agreed that these new nominees should be added
to the previously coRStituted list of prospected nominees for Orange County.
The Chairman referred to Item ~~4 on the Agenda: The Steering Coimni_ttee
of the Orange County Bicentennial Commission has requested the County Commis
sinners to appropriate $500.00 to assist them in developing the County
Bicentennial Program.
Chairman Garrett presented a letter from the National Bicentennial
Commission. The letter recognized Orange County as a Bicentennial County
and the Corm ty Administrator presented the Bicentennial flag that had been
presented to Chairman Garrett on Sunday, November 2, 1975. It was agreed
that the Bicentennial flag would be displayed in the Commissioners' room.
l09
Discussion ensued concerning an appropriation request from
the County's Bicentennial Committee. The Board reviewed the budget
that had been presented by Mrs. Andrews. It was pointed out that
a $50.00 expense had been incurred for the forthcoming program
that would be held on Sunday, November 9, 1975, at the Cameron Park
School.
Commissioner Pinney moved that the Board approve $50.00 to
pay for the organ that had been rented by the Bicentennial Committee
and that all other appropriations be held until a detailed budget
was presented by the Committee.
This motion died for lack of a second.
Further discussion ensued.
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Whitted, it was moved and adopted that the Board appropriate $250.00
from the Contingency Fund to the Bicentennial Committee and that the
Board request the Committee to seek contributions from the Town of
Hillsborough and other sources.
Chris Edwards, Assistant Planning Director introduced Kathy
Williams, a new staff member to the Planning Department.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #5 on the Agenda: Plats for
consideration.
(A) W. H. May: A minor subdivision in Chapel Hill Township
off SR #1717 (Kerley Road). This plat was originally
approved in June of 1973 but was not recorded.
Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that this plat of W. H. May be
reapproved.
(B) John L. Baker: A minor subdivision. This property is
situated on the south side of NC #54 just west of Morgan
Creek and is part o£ a land exchange between Mr. Baker
and Mr. Walter Creech. This plat was approved by the
Planning Board on October 20, 1975.
Mr. Edwards explained to the Board that Mr. Baker was in the pro
cess of exchanging property with Walter Creech, however, he did not
wish to proceed and have the property re-surveyed unless he could be
assured that the property exchanged would be approved.
Discussion ensued. The Board advised Mr. Edwards that as of
this date, and based on the information presented to the Berard, it
could be assumed that the consent of the Board would be given to
Mr. Baker.
(C) Carolina Forest: A final plat. This property is situated
on the south side of SR #1942 and consists of 17 lots each
more than four acres in size. This plat was approved by
the Planning Board on October 20, 7975.
Upon motion of commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner
Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the Board approve the
plat entitled Carolina Forest.
(D) J. T. Farrington: A final plat - this property near
SR #1945 west of Carzboro has been divided into a 7 lot
subdivision. Each lot in this subdivision is one acre
or more in size. The Planning Board has agreed to variances
that would make the subdivision street both a private road
and a road not constructed to State standards. This plat
was approved by the Planning
i1V I
Board July 21, 1975, and was rejected by the Board of
Commissioners in August.
Mr. Edwards advised the Board that the Planning Board had granted
variances in order to allow an access road to this property and that
since it was a private road it would not have to be constructed accord-
ing to State standards. Discussion ensued. It was stated that the
Planning Board had approved this plat with the stated variances.
Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved that the Board accept tYie recommendations of
the Planning Board and that the J. T. Farrington plat be approved.
The Chairman called far the vote.
Commissioners Gustaveson, Pinney, Whitted and Walker voted aye.
Commissioner Garrett voted nay.
r
The Chairman declared the motion passed.
The Chairman requested that Item #6 be deferred until later in
the meeting when County Attorney, Steve Bernholz, would be present.
The Chairman referred to Item #7 on the Agenda: The County
Board of Education has presented to the Board of County Commissioners,
in correct form, a request that the Board of County Commissioners call
for an election, on the question of a supplementary tax not to exceed
5 cents per $100.00 evaluation within the boundries of the'County unit.
The Gounty Attorney has previously advised the Board of County Commis-
. sinners that their responsibility in this situation is only ministerial.
Chairman Garrett read the following petition.
"NOTA COMES the Orange County Board of Education, by and
through its Secretary, GEORGE F. iVII,LIAMS, petitioning the
Orange County Board of Commissioners to call a referendum
for a supplementary School tax prusuant to N.C.G.S. Section
115-116 et. seq.
1. The purpose of calling the proposed election is:
To ascertain the will of the voters as to whether there shall
be levied and collected a special tax in the Orange County
Board of Education administrative unit to supplement the
current expense funds from state and county allotments and
thereby operate scheols of a higher standard by using the
funds to pay the teachers of the school system a supplement
and to employ additional teachers to reduce the classload
in the elementary grades.
2. The area in which the election is requested is all that
area encompassing the administrative unit of the Orange County .
Board of Education.
3. The maximum rate of tax which is proposed to be levied is
five (5) cents per one hundred (100) dollars property valuatien.
4. This petition bears the approval of the Orange County Board
of Education.
WHEREFORE, the Orange County Board of Education prays that the
Orange County Board of Commissioners call an election and fix
a date for the same."
Discussion ensued. The County Attorney advised the Board that
the General Statutes stated that the Board of Commissioners would
have to call the requested election.
__. Upon motion of Commissioner Walker, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the Referendum far a Supple-
mentary School Tax be held at the same time as the Presidential
Primary in March, 1976.
Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the Board of Education be
requested to conduct the Supplementary School Tax Election.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #6 on the Agenda: Reports
from the County Attorney:
111
A. Noxthside School Property
A. B. Coleman, ,7r., County Attorney, advised the Board that he had
conferred with Ed Williams of the Division of Facility Service, Depart-
ment of Human Resources, concerning the p~'oposed Mental Health Grant
and Mr. Williams had advised him that his agency could not accept the
conditions that would have to be outlined in the Letter of Title.
"We discussed whether or not the property could be insured with title
insurance. Tt had been determined by the Facility Service Division
that title insurance would be acceptable if the title policy, in addi-
tion to insuring them and the County, would also contain certain pro-
visions that any law suit brought would be defended by the Title Insur- __
ance Company. Lawyer's Title Insurance Company of North Carolina
wrote a letter to the Facility Division saying that they would insure
the property by title policy and in addition thereto would include the
defense of the title, if there were ever a law suit brought by anybody
in the chain of title."
Chairman Garrett inquired, "What are we to do now, Mr. Coleman?"
The County Attorney replied: "Mr. Williams has stated that this
is acceptable with them and that we can proceed. The Lawyer's Title
said they would insure the property upon certain conditions. These
conditions include a survey of the property and that the boundaries
be established by an agreement with the adjoining property owners."
Mr. Coleman stated that "a serious description problem did exist and
that after the survey all adjoining property owners must sign an agree-
ment establishing the boundaries to be cahere they are shown on the
survey. Mr. Coleman suggested that the Gounty secure a surveyor and
authorize him to consult with the adjoining property owners at the time
that the survey is being conducted in order to avoid any later dispute
over the boundary lines.
Commissioner L4hitted moved that the County proceed to have the
Northside School property surveyed and to authorize the surveyor to
consult with the adjoining property owners at the time of the survey
in order to establish the boundary lines.
The County Administrator inquired, "Will the Surveyor or the
Attorney have the authority .to negotiate and reach an agreement
independently without coming back to the Board for final authority?"
Commissioner Whitted replied, "Xes, that was the intent of the
motion."
Commissioner Gustaveson seconded the motion.
The Chairman called for the vote.
Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney and Whitted voted aye.
Commissioner Walker voted nay.
The motion was declared passed.
B. Grady Brown School Property
The County Attorney advised the Board that~by virtue of a deed
recorded in Book 259, page 38, in the Register of Deeds Office, the
County now owns the Grady A. Brown property subject to the following
conditions: -
"To Have and to Hold the above granted, bargained and described
premises, with the appurtenances, unto the said second party, -
and its successors and assigns, to its proper use, benefit and
behoof forever, upon the express condition that, in case the said
above described premises shall not be used by the second party for
a public purpose, or if said premises shall ever cease to be used
by the second party for a public purpose, then, and in such event,
the said parcel of land shall revert to the first party, as if
this conveyance had not been made."
Mr. Coleman explained to the Board the terminology of ,the pro-
vision in the heed to the Grady A. Brown property.
11~
Mrs. Garrett inquired, "Is there anyway that before County Deeds
are finalized that we can be advised of the matter?"
Discussion ensued concerning the Grady A. Brown facility.
Commissioner Pinney inquired of the County Administrator if the
County could not place No Trespass signs on the property; put locks
on the doors and have someone go through the buildings and pull the
main switches so the lights will be off; and have the doors and broken
windows boarded up.
C. Sediment Contrdl Ordinance.
Mr. Coleman inquired of the Board: "Are you inviting criticism
from other governing bodies as you have instructed me to meet with
the Attorneys from the Towns of Mebane, Carrboro, Hillsbarougki and
Chapel Hill - Now we need to know what you are wanting. We have
reviewed the Ordinance, what do you want us to accomplish in our
meeting with the Attorneys from the various towns?"
Chairman Garrett replied, "This is a Gounty-wide Ordinance and
they should proceed with their method by their Board and adapt the
Ordinance by Resolution or whatever method that is used in adopting
Ordinances; and secondly, there was some discussion concerning the
language in the opening paragraph of the Ordinance, specifically the
mentioning of the Towns that would adopt the Ordinance.
Mr. Coleman was advised to coordinate the policy procedure for
the adoption of the Ordinance. Each governing body should be aware
of the Ordinance.
The County Attorney was advised that if he felt a lengthy
criticism of the Ordinance was necessary then he should proceed to
present his opinion.
D. The Mae McLendon Appointment to the County Board of Sooial
Services.
', ..
Steve Bernholz, County Attorney, presented an official response
'from the Attorney General's office to the County's requested ruling
on the State Social Service Standard #5. Mr. Bernholz stated that this
new ruling is a reversal of the prior ruling made for the State Social
Services Commission. Copies of the Attorney General's ruling were pre-
sented to each Board member.
Mr. Bernholz proceeded to read the document and discussion ensued
concerning the matter.
Chairman Garrett inquired, "Legally, where does that leave us."
Mr. Bernholz replied,"to the extent to which the State Commission
of Social Service was relying on the previous Attorney General's re-
port in issuing its directive to the County Board of Social Services
and to the extent to which the County Board of Social Services was in
turn relying upon what the State Board of Social Services told them,
then I would say to the question, you don't stand anywhere legally, in
that, this question has now been eliminated. It is my feeling that the
State Commission views and is statutorial, by the way, represented by
the Attorney General, if they have a lawyer at all, it is the Attorney
General of North Carolina. The Attorney General of North Carolina has
in effect now advised them that the State of North Carolina, through
the mouth of the Attorney General, does not sanction their promulgation
or enforcment of Standard #S. Whether or not the State Commission
will now advise the County Board of Social Services of anything, to
- take any action, 2 don't know. 2 think, assuming that they are not
under any obligation to do anything.
Commissioner Walker stated that he felt the local Social Services
Board would have to get a directive from the Department of Human
Resources prior to the local Board having the authority to do anything
since the Department of Human Resources set the rules and the regula-
tions that are administrated by the local Board.
~1~
Further discussion ensued concerning the matter.
Commissioner Whitted moved that the Board write to the Chairman
of the State Social Service Commission and request that in light of
the new ruling from the Attorney General's office that they allow
the County's appointee to the Board of Social Services to be seated
at the next Board meeting and a copy of the letter be sent to Clem
Johnson, Chairman of the Social Services Board.
Discussion ensued. Commissioner Whitted's motion died for lack
of a second.
Commissioner Whitted then moved that the proper form for the
appointment of Mae McLendon be returned to the State Social Services
Commission reaffirming the County's appointment to the Social Services
Board. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Pinney.
The Chairman called for the vote.
Commissioners Garrett, Gustaveson, Pinney and ;Vhitted voted aye.
Commissioner Walker voted nay.
The motion was declared passed.
Commissioner Walker requested that the vote of the Board be made
a part of the letter that the Clerk would forward to the State Social
Service Commission.
E. Memorandum Concerning Child Support Enforcement Act
The County Attorney stated that he had not had an apportunity to
study the Memorandum of Understanding from the State Department of
Human Resources. The Memorandum deals with the Child Support Progx'am.
Mr. Coleman. stated that one of his Law Clerks attended an all day
conference on the matter and it was his understanding that the Federal --
Government does not want to pay an attorney to be the agent to head i
up this work under this program. They think it is too expense and
they do not want the attorney to do the investigating.
IKr. Coleman stated that he had discussed the matter with an
Attorney from Johnston County. This county had instituted a similar
system several years ago and the Attorney advised him that the system
of having someone other than the County Attorney to do the investiga-
ting work with the County Attorney doing the prosecuting portion was
proving to be beneficial. He stated further that the County could
be reimbursed through the Federal Agency and that his office had not
received all the necessary data from the State.
Discussion ensued. The Board agreed to defer action on the matter.
The Chairman referred to Item #9 on the Agenda: The Summer
Recreation Program - The Recreation Director will report on the
activities of the recreation program during the past summer and
activities planned for the next few months.
Chairman Garrett recognized Wayne Weston, Recreation Director,
who reviewed the programs conducted through his department during
the summer months.
Discussion ensued concerning the need for a Recreation Advisory
and/or Steering Commission to back up and advise the Recreation Depart-
ment and members of the staff.
Commissioner Walker was not present for the afternoon session of
the meeting.
The Chairman referred to Item ~8 on the Agenda: Resolution
Endorsing Revenue Sharing - The State and National Association of
Counties have both requested their members to enact a resolution
endorsing the "Revenue Sharing" Program.
Chairman Garrett read the following resolution:
' ~~~
"WHEREAS, County governments in nearly half of the states
budget from July through June and all counties must make long
term budget commitments to efficiently meet the needs of their
citizens;
WHEREAS, Counties depend on general revenue sharing dollars
for essential county programs;
WHEREAS, Revenue sharing dollars enable counties to fill
locally d~ermined vital needs with minimal redtape and federal
restrictions;
WHEREAS, Efficient county government calls for well-planned
advance budgeting;
WHEREAS,. Responsive county government depends on efficient
county planning and budgeting and ample time for citizen
participation;
WHEREAS, The current revenue sharing program expires
December 31, 1976 and July through June fiscal year counties
must begin budgeting the previous spring;
THEREFORE, BE IT P~SOLVED BY the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, that general revenue sharing be re-enacted by
the first session of the 94th Congress providing counties with
advance dollar figures that can be used for efficient, respon-
sive planning of programs and budgets and that can be identified
for more than half of their fiscal '76 year and can be incorpor-
ated in long term effective planning.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution along
with the summary report be immediately forwarded to the Senate
and the House of Representatives."
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
whitted,~ it was moved that the Board adopt the Revenue Sharing Resolu-
tion and the Clerk was requested to forward copy of the same to the
Congressional Delegation.
Discussion ensued concerning the Revenue Sharing Rally that has
been scheduled by NACO in Washington on November 18, 1975.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #10 on the Agenda: A report
of progress toward locating an Animal Shelter.
Chairman Garrett stated that :she and Commissioner Pinney had
investigated the facility available at the Durham Boarding Kennel
and that they felt these facilities would provide the Board with a
solution to its animal problem. It was pointed out that the owner
would charge $100.00 per month plus 80 cents per dog and 60 cents
per cat which would amount to approximately $4,OD0.00 a year.
Discussion ensued concerning any requirements on the part of
the County to commit itself beyond a given period of time.
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the County proceed to negotiate
a contract with the Durham Boarding Kennel for the housing of the
County's unwanted animals.
The County Administrator was requested to negotiate such a contract.
The Chairman referred to Item #15 on the Agenda and recognized
William Laws, Tax Supervisor. Mr. Laws referred the Board to the
Late-Listing Release Request of Mr. Francis Chan of Chapel Hill
Township, who had a late-list charge. Mr. Chan was present to appeal
- the late-list penalty for 1975. Mr. Chan stated that he was out of
the Country, getting married, and that his mail was not forwarded.
Upon his return to this Country he made an inquiry concerning his taxes
and was told that he could list them, however, due to the pressure of
other business he did not list the taxes until February $th. This was
four days beyond the late-list penalty date. He referred the Board to
the fact that it did not appear on the tax form the amount of the
penalty that would be imposed for late listing.
The Board inquired of the County Attorney as to what authority
they had to grant a release of the late tax listing penalty.
Mr. Coleman stated that without research, he could not advise them.
~.~5
Discussion ensued. The Board requested the Tax Supervisor to pre-
sent the other request for release of late-list penalty on 1975 taxes.
Mr. Laws advised the Board that all of the requests for late listing
penalty xeleases were of similar nature. Fie then reviewed the following
requests:
(1) Brigitte Abrams, Chapel Hill Township, late-list charge
of $34.83.
(2) Frnacis Chan request - already presented.
(3) Charles & Thelma Holloway, Chapel Hill Township,
Tract #9028, $38.23; and Tract #2788, $9.87.
(4) Jon W. Tolle, Chapel Hill Township - late-list charge of -
$37.15.
(5) Annie L. Wright, Chapel Hill Township, late-list charge of
$19.37 on real property and $3.46 charge on personal property.
The Board agreed to defer action on all the late-list penalty
requests until the County Attorney could advise them of their legal
position.
Mr. Chan requested that once the decision of the Board was made
that he be advised of that decision. Mr. Laws stated that he could
assure Mr. Chan that he would be notified.
The Tax Supervisor was asked to make sure that the percentage of
the late-list penalty tax was included on all future tax listing
forms.
The Tax Supervisor referred to (B) of Item #15: Four refunds
for approval:
(1) Jesse Davis, Cheeks Township, requested a refund of 1973 tax
due to erroneous pricing of his trailer. The total refund re-
quested for 1973 was $48.69.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whined,
it was moved and adopted that the refund of $48.69 be made to Jesse Davis.
(2) Henrietta Shannon, Chapel Hill Township, requested a refund
for 1975 taxes of $13.13. Mrs. Shannon and her sister listed
personal property jointly and applied for the exemption far the
elderly jointly, however, the tax lister misunderstood this and
just had one party sign the application. The 1975 tax bill of
$13.13 had already been paid.
Upon motion of Commissioner Finney, seconded by Commissioner
Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted that the refund of $13.13 be granted
to Henrietta Shannon.
(3) J. H. H. Associates, Ltd., Cheeks Township, requested a refund
on a parcel which had previously been listed as unknown. The total
amount of refund requested is $12.68.
Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Finney,
it was moved and adopted that a refund of $12.68 be granted to the J.H.H.
Associates, Ltd.
(4) Webb Development, Inc., Chapel Hill Township, requested a
refund of $60.70 on Tract #13935 due to repricing of land in 1974 and
also requested a refund of $54.72 on Tract #13936 for repricing of land
with resulting change in real property value.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner Whitted,
it was moved and adopted that refunds of $60.70 and $54.72 be granted
to the Webb Development, Inc.
(c) Item #15: The Board of Commissioners to render a decision on
the tax assessment appeal of Mr. George Tate.
The Tax Supervisor recommended that Mr. Tote's lots on Rosemary
Street be reduced per front foot rate from $540.00 per front foot to
$360.00 per front foot. This would give $17,500 land value on Map 85
Block L, Lot 32, and $23,600. value on Tax Map 85, Block L, Lot 33.
11~
Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted, seconded by Commissioner
Gustaveson, it was moved and adopted to accept the recommendation
of the Tax Supervisor for the George Tate property.
Chairman Garrett reminded the Board that the time for adjourn-
ment as set by resolution was 3:30 p.m., and that it was now 3:30 p.m.
Upon motion of Commissioner Whitted,seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that the Board extend the meeting
time in order that all items on the Agenda might be completed.
The Chairman referred to Xtem #11 on the Agenda: A possible
Ordinance Regulating the Discharge of Firearms - Dr. Charles Blake's
letter.
Commissioner Pinney moved for the deferrment of Item #11 until
Commissioner Walker could be present.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #12 on the Agenda: A report
on progress of State Personnel Departments study of County pay plan
and classification system.
The County Administrator reported that the State Personnel Depart-
ment was in the process of trying to update the County's Personnel
Plan, however, it would be some weeks before the matter could be completed.
The Chairman referred to Item #13 on the Agenda: Uniform Allowance
The Sheriff has recommended that personnel of his investigation unit
be provided a uniform allowance of $25.00 per month in lieu of being
furnished county uniforms.
Discussion ensued concerning the policies of other law enforce-
ment agencies and their clothing allowance for the detectives.
Upon motion of Commissioner Pinney, seconded by Commissioner
Whitted, it was moved that the Sheriff's Department be allocated a
$25.00 per month clothing allowance for each of the four detectives.
This allocation is to came from the Uniform Account.
The Chairman called for the vote.
Commissioner Gustaveson, Pinney and Whitted voted aye.
Commissioner Garrett voted nay.
The Chairman declared the motion passed.
The Chairman referred to Item #14 on the Agenda: Appointments.
(C) The term of Ms. Elizabeth Connley on the Chapel Hill
Planning Board expired June 30, 197-5. The Chapel Hill Planning
Board has recommended as a replacement Ms. Jane Stein ar Ms.
Irene 12osenfeld.
Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that Jane Stein be appointed to re-
place Elizabeth Connley on the Chapel Hill Planning Board.
(A) Mr. Howard Welch's term on the Board of Directors of the
Triangle J Housing Development corporation expired September
30, 1975.
This appointment was previously made by the Board.
_ (B) Mr. E. Blaine Liner has been granted a leave of absence
from the Chapel Hill Planning Board until July 1, 1976.. The
Chapel Hill Planning Board recommends Ms. Elizabeth Martin as
a replacement.
The appointment was previously made by the Board.
('D) Appointments to the Orange County Board of Adjustment.
These two appointments were previously made by the Board.
11`7
(E) One vacancy exists on the Durham-Orange Manpower Council.
This appointment was previously made by the Board.
(F) The request for the County to name someone representing
the emergency medical services providers to the Health Task
Force.
This appointment was previously made by the Board.
(G) Two persons to be named as Trustees to the New HOpe Firemens
Relief k'und.
Discussion ensued concerning this appointment.
Upon moton of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner
Pinney, it was moved and adopted that Douglas Lange and James Walker
be appointed as Trustees to the New Hope Firemens Relief Fund.
The meeting was then adjourned.
~.~ Ma,. ~ . ~ ,.
Flora R. Garrett, Chairman
Betty June Hayes, Clerk
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIOYdERS
November 17, 1975
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session
on Monday, November 17, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., in the Commissioners'
Room at the Courthouse in Hillsborough.
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.
Chairman Garrett referred to Item #1 on the Agenda: Resolution
formally requesting a Supplementary School Tax vote in the Orange
County School District.
Chairman Garrett read the following Resolution:
"Whereas, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has been, by '
formal petition, petitioned by the Orange County Board of Education
to call a referendum for a Supplementary School Tax pursuant to N. C.
General Statutes Section 115-116 et. seq., a copy of said petition
being attached hereto; and '
FVhereas, the General Statutes of North Carolina require the said
Board of Commissioners upon such petition to call for such an
election; and
Whereas, upon motion duly made, seconded and approved the said
Board of Commissioners did call for a referendum for a Supple-
mentary School Tax pursuant to N. C. General Statutes Sectien
115-116 et. seq., the date for said election being the 23 day of
March, 1976, being the same date as the ~lorth Carolina Presidential
Primary election date; it is now
Resolved, that the details of the election herein called for are
as follows:
1. The purpose for calling the proposed election is:
To ascertain the will of the voters as to whether there shall be
levied and collected a special tax in the Orange County Board of